home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / sci / med / 21431 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-11-24  |  1.1 KB  |  27 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.med
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!citi.prds.cdx.mot.com!dan
  3. From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
  4. Subject: Re: evidence for homeopathy - who pays?
  5. Message-ID: <1992Nov23.204134.18152@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
  6. Organization: none
  7. References: <1992Oct26.180147.10892@aoa.aoa.utc.com> <1dp2tfINNc4a@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>     <dank.721767362@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> <1992Nov16.170512.3418@island.COM>     <annick.722490968@cortex.physiol.su.oz.au> <BSIMON.92Nov23130313@elvis.stsci.edu>
  8. Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:41:34 GMT
  9. Lines: 16
  10.  
  11. bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon) writes:
  12.  
  13. > Homeopathic medicines
  14. >currently in use cannot be patented.  Without patent protection, there
  15. >is no incentive for any profit making company to test them.
  16.  
  17. Oh boy, is there ever incentive.  What percent of the drug market
  18. do these companies have now?  Think how much greater a share they
  19. could gain if they had hard scientific data to prove to the general
  20. public that their products work.  Such convincing would be easier
  21. if they could also show *how* these products work.
  22.  
  23. I'm waiting...
  24.  
  25. Dan Breslau
  26. dan@codex.com
  27.