Re: "Fold Equity" ...definition and example please


"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fg26k.14069$Jx.10122@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
No, dutchie, I'm stating facts.

You're not stating facts, you're stating opinions, and not providing
evidence to back them up.

I'm stating fact.
You wouldn't know fact if it bit you in the ass.



The FACTS are, government regulated pricing eliminates innovation by
reducing sharply incentive for R&D.

That's not fact, it's drug company propaganda.

Yep, you're retarded.

Read this, shithead.

Why do drugs cost so much?
Although the chemical ingredients for each mass-manufactured pill cost only
pennies, retail prices are hundreds -- even thousands -- of times greater.
Drug companies argue that the high prices reflect the costs of the years of
research and development necessary before a new drug makes it to market.
According to industry spokesperson Marjorie Powell, it costs an average of
$800 million and takes 12 to 15 years before a new medicine makes it to drug
store shelves.

Typically, drug discovery begins with an idea for a new disease target,
often licensed from a university laboratory or biotech company. Then,
industry researchers start sifting through tens of thousands of compounds,
looking for one that will hit the target. Next they test the candidate drug
in animals, to look for toxic side effects. If it is toxic, the scientists
must go back to the drawing board and start all over again. Only one out of
50 drugs pass this stage and make it to clinical trials in humans. These
trials are the most expensive phase, eating up 75 percent of development
costs. For every five drugs entering clinical trials, one will make it to
market.

Two major studies support Powell's assertion that the R&D costs of new drugs
are close to $800 million. Most often cited is a November 2001 report from
the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, which found
that the total costs of R&D to bring a new drug from discovery to FDA
approval for marketing is $802 million. (In March 2003, researchers expanded
their conclusions by adding post-approval R&D costs -- studies of long-term
safety and effectiveness, for example -- and came up with a total of $892
million per drug.) Another study from May 2000 by the Boston Consulting
Group estimated the cost at $880 million.

Besides, no drug is going
to come along and make you immortal, so you may as well be glad that
patents are set to expire so that those drugs become affordable.

Yep, you're REALLY a shithead.

Read THIS, retard :

There may be no need to search for the fountain of youth. A new animal study
shows it may be inside of us, in the form of a gene that prolongs the
lifespan of mice. This ScienCentral News video has more.

Age Busting Gene

Methuselah is said to have hit 969, Jared 962 and Noah over 500. We're not
talking career home runs here, but biblical-era birthdays. Since no one's
matched these records to date, most of us have more modest numbers in mind
when we think about living a long, healthy life.
"Eighty-five. that's a good number to me," says Gregoire Boisrond, a
33-year-old technician in New York City.

Floridian Liz Whiteside, a mere toddler on the longevity scale at 24, has
higher aspirations: "Heck, I'd live to 120 if I could do it."

As scientists slowly pick apart the biological mechanisms that cause us to
age, the future could see more of us winding up closer to Liz's ideal. Fresh
evidence from an animal study shows how a gene called "klotho" - named for
the Greek goddess who spins the thread of life - acts like a natural
anti-aging hormone in genetically engineered mice

The longevity these special rodents enjoy may be the result of the
klotho gene preventing what scientists call "oxidative stress," or damage in
cells, tissues, or organs caused by free radicals, environmental pollutants,
or even bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Over time, DNA changes in
response to this chemical onslaught, cells die, and aging sets in.





That's not in dispute by any rational adult, history is far too clear on
this.

That's not evidence, it's a compound fallacy.



No, shithead.

But the fact that you failed logic rears its head again




.