最受歡迎 30天 | Most Popular 30 days

Thursday, June 23, 2016

俄羅斯的「空中鱷魚」The Mi-24 Hind Helicopter

阿富汗戰爭展身手 俄羅斯的「空中鱷魚」
http://photo.chinatimes.com/20160624002360-260813
Mi-24
MI 24 Russian attack helicopter (RWA) Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ5je96v8H8
The Mi-24 Hind Helicopter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAz8EyrMQt8
Mi-24 Film 1/2 The warrior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytjMaEhNw6M
Mi-24 Film 2/2 The story continues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55LuPlmgeiw
Putin's reforms of the Russian Army 2011-2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZEhmYajkJY

藥廠賺大錢後 七大藥物副作用浮現

藥廠賺大錢後 七大藥物副作用浮現
有沒有發覺,當不少藥物離開市場或失去專利權以後,其副作用才開始引起討論?
事實是,就算不少藥物真的很危險,藥廠也不會告訴你,因為製藥企業要賺大錢。美國獨立媒體Alternet有文章指出,有七種處方藥物的副作用被低估,直至企業賺大錢後才被揭穿。
美國食品藥品管理局(FDA)及製藥企業常常說,當上百萬人一起使用處方藥物時,其危險副作用才會出現,在少數病人的臨床試驗中則沒有。但公眾往往都會成為白老鼠,因為處方藥物要在六個月內趕及推出市場以賺錢,即使我們無法肯定它非常安全。
一隻擁有專利權的新藥推出市面,將會為藥廠帶來數以十億計的收入。對藥廠來說,藥物的副作用只是「成本」,只要利益大於成本,無論有多危險它們也會去做,這就是賺到盡的利潤最大化。
當新藥推出,不少醫護人員都會建議病人等待七年以後才試用。只有等待長時間的應用,以及避免瘋狂的廣告宣傳以後,一隻藥物才會變得穩定。當然,仿製藥(generics drug)也未必安全。例如美國最高法院便說過病人無法追討仿製藥的生產者。
換句話說,大藥廠只要將藥物的副作用隱藏至失去專利權,病人想追究藥廠責任就變成十分困難了。
不要以為這與你無關,當中不少藥物在臺、港都能買到。以下便是幾種在推出市面後,其副作用才曝光的藥物:
█  1. 萬絡止痛藥(Vioxx)(台灣藥名叫「偉克適」)
15年前,萬絡這種「超級阿斯匹靈」藥物受默克藥廠(Merck)強烈吹捧,一度請來不少運動員為萬絡大賣廣告。默克藥廠告訴你,萬絡能針對所有奇難雜症,包括關節炎到月經來潮。它更宣稱能避免使用者因以往服用阿斯匹靈而導致的腸胃管道毛病。結果是一場災難,萬絡終導致27,785宗突發性心臟病和心臟死亡。
2004年,該藥下架。默克藥廠向公眾辯稱自己毫不知情,但《新英國醫藥期刊》在2006年指責默克藥廠隱瞞由萬絡導致的「一批不良心血管病的資料」。2007年,默克藥廠願意賠償48.5億美元(約378億港元)予病人及逝世者的家屬。不過萬絡由1999年至2004年間,每年賺了約25億美元(約195億港元),利益還是大於賠償。
█  2.福善美(Fosamax)
萬絡不是默克藥廠唯一出問題的藥。默克藥廠的福善美(Fosamax),是第一隻雙磷酸鹽(biphosphonates)類的抗骨質疏鬆藥物。它的副作用包括心臟病、頑固痛症、顎骨壞死、骨折、食道癌等——而這一一都要在2008年待它專利期過後才被發現。法庭公開的文件顯示,早自1970年代,默克藥廠的科學家已從動物實驗中得知福善美會導致顎骨壞死。
這還不是全部真相。默克藥廠為了賣得多藥,在美國的醫務所都裝設骨質密度描述器,「恐嚇」骨瘦的女性,建議她們服用福善美來治病。
█  3. 膽固清(Lipitor)立普妥Lipitor - 輝瑞大藥廠
歷史上最暢銷的藥物是甚麼?膽固清,一隻神奇的抑制膽固醇藥物。14年半間,膽固清為輝瑞製藥( Pfizer)賺進1250億美元。
膽固清的成功有賴兩個因素:第一,它在1997年面世並且隨應了「直接面對顧客」式廣告的興起;第二,它擊中了大眾對因為膽固醇過高而患心臟病的恐懼。結果,美國有足足2,900萬人服用膽固清。
美好的故事維持到2012年,同年膽固清失去了專利權。美國食品藥品管理局忽然跑出來,告訴大家原來膽固清及其他抑制膽固醇的藥物會引致糖尿病、肝臟受損、肌肉受損及記憶衰退。
█  4. 耐信(Nexium)
第二隻最暢銷的藥物是甚麼?耐信。耐信及其他質子泵抑制藥(Proton-Pump Inhibitors)都用於治療胃酸倒流等疾病。在質子泵抑制藥面世以前,人們治療火燒心、消化不良都只靠咀嚼中和胃酸的藥片及泰胃美(Tagamet)。耐信的市場也是驚人的,每年賺超過50億美元收入,所有質子泵抑制藥加起來更賺到136億美元,處方超過1.19億次。
同在2012年,美國食品藥品管理局指出耐信與感染艱難梭菌(Clostridium Difficile)有關。艱難梭菌會引起具抗藥性的腸道感染,難以治癒。2013年,有醫學研究指質子泵抑制藥會導致骨折、鈣鎂缺乏症、肺炎及維他命B-12缺乏症。John P. Cooke的研究更顯示,質子泵抑制藥會導致血管收窄,增加心臟病風險。當然,2014年耐信的專利權就完結了。
█  5. 阿得拉(Adderall)
多年來的媒體宣傳及藥廠廣告影響下,過度活躍症(ADHD)已經成為第二位常見兒童的病症(第一位是哮喘)。過度活躍症往往與兒童的成績太差或記憶力差有關。即使不少人指出孩子正在被迫服興奮劑治療,活活受罪, 但大藥廠依然堅稱藥物治療無損孩子健康。
不過在2009年──剛巧是阿得拉失去專利權之時──《美國精神病學期刊》發現該藥正在謀殺孩子。研究人員研究564宗7至19歲青少年突然死亡的個案後,發現與興奮劑(stimulant)的應用有莫大關係。當然,藥廠的醫生不會同意這種說法。
█   6. 百可舒(Paxil)
百可舒是一種血清素調節劑類(SSRI)的抗抑鬱藥。
2007年,英國BBC電視台揭露,由葛蘭素史克(GSK)研製的百可舒被證明會使青少年自殺的機會大增六倍,但結果卻被埋藏起來。後來葛蘭素史在2012年以30億美元擺平了這單官司。
2005年,美國食品藥品調查局發現孕婦服用百可舒會導致嬰兒的天生缺陷,如心臟畸型。而且嬰兒更可能會有低血糖、僵硬、亂哭、震顫等問題。
即使如此,葛蘭素史克在2002年以百可舒賺了21.2億美元。同年,百可舒失去專利權。
█  7. 恩比安(Ambien)
大藥廠其中一種財源是安眠藥,因為每個不能睡覺的人都會看電視,看電視就會看見安眠藥廣告。恩比安是賽諾菲藥廠(Sanofi-Aventis)的安眠藥,在2006年失去專利權前,每年賺20億美元。
在2006年後,恩比安的奇怪副作用開始惹來爭議。人們服用恩比安後,會出現奇怪的昏厥,並且會有夢遊,胡亂打電話給別人但醒來卻不知道發生何事。有人醒來後發現身邊全部都是薄餅及Häagen-Dazs雪榚,也有一個女人在夢遊時喝掉整支黑鞋油。
2012年美國馬約診所不再處方恩比安予病人。2013年,美國食品藥品調查局警告恩比安會導致「夢遊」出現,而藥物仍會殘留身體,並建議減少服用劑量,尤其是女性。
轉貼老弟的文章 - 筍子的部落格 

談談現代喬國老 - 
http://blog.udn.com/ericwy1029/62905934
「國民黨要講義氣 民進黨要講誠信」
http://blog.udn.com/ericwy1029/62095377
如美國不參加聯合國海洋公約,但卻主張中國在南海要服從海洋公約,服從國際法庭之裁決。然對日本的沖之鳥礁,則站在日本立場,認為日本是對的。
**公孫策專文:國民黨要講義氣 民進黨要講誠信
http://www.storm.mg/article/126325

懷柔與羈縻—兼論兩岸的和平解決之道
http://goo.gl/tqfltv
帝國的邪惡本質
http://goo.gl/EnWzbH

【講些正經的!】 Natural Bacteriophages - A Promising Alternative to Fight Antibiotics Resistance

【講些正經的!】 Natural Bacteriophages - A Promising Alternative to Fight Antibiotics Resistance  

Elanco, EnBiotix Establish Collaboration Exploring Engineered Phage Technology
http://goo.gl/xsl32U
ELANCO EXPLORES ANTIBIOTIC ALTERNATIVES THROUGH PARTNERSHIP WITH ENBIOTIX
http://goo.gl/PbHx9K

Enbiotix
http://enbiotix.com/
 Natural Bacteriophages are Specialized Bacteria-Killers
http://enbiotix.com/technology/engineered-bacteriophage-platform/
EBX-001 FOR CYSTIC FIBROSIS
http://goo.gl/FNkS7b
EBX-002 targets gram-negative persisters in hospital patients with indwelling urinary catheters
http://goo.gl/eQ0dvF
EPP-001 incorporates biofilm-degrading enzyme payloads into optimized natural bacteriophage
http://goo.gl/nz8Gyb
【那ㄟ安捏?】 終於了解什麼叫 '報老鼠冤' 了

行政院會通過 撤回520前兩岸監督條例等115項法案
http://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20160623004096-260401

China to generate a quarter of electricity from wind power by 2030

China to generate a quarter of electricity from wind power by 2030
https://goo.gl/uTTJDL


【講些正經的!】談論一下資本主義的遺害, 為何最低工資只有 22K


Capitalism Corrupts the Inclusive Market Mechanism

by Guest author
panthera logo
The Brexit debate in the United Kingdom shows that archaic drivers of our societies can emerge again, even in the cradle of democracy. The opponents in this fight are not the UK vs Brussels, but the disenfranchised vs the elite. And even this only represents the outcome of false premises and their validating concepts. As former Labour Party minister Tony Benn put it: “This country and the world have been run by rich and powerful men from the beginning of time.”
The development of capitalism from the 18th century through to the 20th saw radical and sometimes rapid change not just in technologies and production processes, with the invention of the steam engine or mass production, for example, but also in philosophical and political concepts. The humanist project of the liberation of the individual was strengthened during the Enlightenment, but a new idea emerged too, that the whole of society could improve – social progress. The political translation of this included the fight for universal suffrage, human rights, minority rights, etc. The attitudes and actions that flowed from this were not always coherent with the ambitions they exemplified. Remember the euphoric belief in technology before WWI or the social/national questions during the second half of the 19th century in several monarchies and empires.
Despite all the upheavals the transition to the modern industrial age entailed, the process also produced stabilising social phenomena through the self-empowerment of the individual, such as labour unions or the new property-owning, entrepreneurial middle class. Twin phenomena were at work again, this time economic and political rather than philosophical and political.  The mass consumerism the new economy that would allow the new socioeconomic system to emerge and flourish depended on a widened participation of the individual in both the economy and society. It was only through this widened participation that narratives like the American Dream could manifest themselves – the prototype of social mobility driven by an inclusive market mechanism.
Society benefitted from increased social mobility not least because of the stark contrast it presented with anachronistic injustices like slavery, discrimination against women, oppression of ethnic or religious minorities, and inequalities of income and wealth. This in turn benefitted the economy by expanding the consumer base, for instance through increased labour market participation by women throughout the 20th century.
In short, social mobility was a necessary condition for political and economic self-empowerment of individuals, combined with an inclusive market mechanism that allowed them to live this self-empowerment in many different ways. And this remains the case today. Through social mobility, an inclusive market mechanism and equality of opportunities enable the best in our societies to get a chance to make it to the top. At the same time, the best are forced to compete responsibly for the best solutions of the problems of our times on a level playing field.
Here, the “false premises and their validating concepts” becomes visible. In the early 1980s, when Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan began to increase the competitiveness of their economies for the upcoming globalization on the basis of the theories of the Chicago School, their reforms were labeled as liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. The claim was that this trinity would strengthen the individual in their societies and the competitiveness of their economies. The “victory” of capitalism over communism in 1989 reinforced the reform agenda. The interpretation of capitalism that dominated this agenda however shows a lack of congruence with an inclusive market mechanism. As Noam Chomsky said in September 2015): “Progress requires puncturing the bubble of inevitability: austerity, for instance, is a policy decision undertaken by thedesigners for their own purposes. US capitalism also benefits from ideological obfuscation: despite its association with free markets, capitalism is shot through with subsidies for some of the most powerful private actors.”
The game plan that would play out as globalisation was designed in Bretton Woods in 1944 and through GATT in 1947. Since the 1980s, the dynamics of this process has led to a massive reduction of extreme poverty worldwide, especially since the economic convergence of emerging markets gained momentum in the 1990s. In parallel, those dynamics damaged the social cohesion of developed economies as productivity gains and participation through gainful work became decoupled, while employees were tamed by increasing their consumption not through higher income in return for their productivity gains, but by getting into debt. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher: “You may not be able to get a wage increase, but you can get a loan.”
This development led to a weakening of the inclusive market mechanism through an oligopolisation of market-based allocation processes and a plutocratically-biased political decision making process.
This development also led to a weakening of equality of opportunities through a disintegration of the middle class and its stabilising factors like democratic participation or solidarity movements like labour unions.
Altogether it led to a weakening of social mobility in our societies. And a return to business as usual as described by Tony Benn. The debate is not about political ideologies and their partisan views on whether more public or private sector dominance is better.  The question is how to make sure our societies stay competitive in an evidence-based, innovation-driven search for democratically legitimized solutions for the challenges of our times.
The debate is not about political ideologies and their partisan views on whether more public or private sector dominance is better.  The question is how to make sure our societies stay competitive in an evidence-based, innovation-driven search for democratically legitimized solutions for the challenges of our times.