What is GMO?

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 17:59

Janic wrote:
The selection made by our ancestors is, in the strict sense of the term, genetic manipulation. Handling comes from hand. When in a given population, you take such an ear to make a seed, you choose the genes that it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...
Too simple to understand?

On the contrary, it is elementary and even if I speak little on the subject, I never said the opposite. I just point out that what you call genetic manipulation, others call it selection, which has nothing to do with direct intrusion into the cell ignoring the natural barriers of protection against any intrusion. We are not on the same scale of value!
We can compare this to vaccination (I know I break my feet with this subject, but it is the same process) Jenner, notes that the cowherds are immunized against smallpox after having affected the udder of cows with variola vaccine. It is therefore an OUTDOOR contact without intrusion and therefore passing through the skin's immune system. Jenner will break through, break down this barrier to go directly under the skin, assuming that where the skin's immune system reduces vaccine infection, this would increase the chance of making the next immune system, the blood, even more effective. .and it could have worked except that in the following epidemics the vaccinated were the first and most important victims and it had not been planned, nor imagined by the health authorities or point that the English State removed the vaccination obligation of this sickness.
GMOs are the same catchphrase except that the 2nd protective barrier is also crossed without precautions (which ones, moreover?)
Too simple to understand?
Why confuse with reversibility or not ???

Because any intervention DANCE the living depends on it! if we do a bypass, it is as irreversible as if we do a heart transplant!
Just because it annoys you? Irrepressible need to be right?

Or just common sense!
Reread. I did not say that it is irreversible.

It is true, it is I who say it, but not concerning the selection, but the intrusion. We have 2 centuries of experiments of all kinds on the living and with each new discovery, we realize that we were unaware that such or such mechanism, had close links with other complex, sophisticated mechanisms which it is necessary sometimes try to repair, when possible only.
But our DIY enthusiasts do not take it into account since no ethics committee supervises these bulb heads that manufacturers do not use for their beautiful eyes, but to extract industrial products that generate large quantities, huge benefits, especially since the living can be patented and their turnover has exploded. 7 billion, soon 10 billion customers, it is not nothing and as much as possible, not to lose them stupidly with organic, alternative medicines.
Nothing like. I'm not stupid enough (even in your eyes - I hope)

Especially in my eyes, I appreciate your efforts to direct the minds and actions towards a better respect for the soil, for its life, so it is not a question of bullshit, but from a different point of view
to challenge a truism: if we stop cultivating them ("cure" if you want), most varieties (even old ones) will disappear ...

They will not disappear, any more than the trees, flowers, fauna " where the hand of man has not set foot » : Cheesy: . According to Darwinism natural selection will sort and the most robust (according to other criteria than ours) will resist as they have done for millennia.
b) how does this contradict the fact that creating these varieties was "genetic manipulation" by our ancestors (literally: with their own hands, they chose such genes over others)?

They knew nothing about genes, not difficult! But by selecting, with their hands, certain seeds, they did so to the detriment of others more robust, more adapted to the soil, to the climate, etc… and that concerns especially our time.
In this we can compare the current corn in our regions, greedy in water, with that of the regions originating from this product where the fields are not precisely watered, but producing less large ears, and there no need for chemical treatments. You have already raised the issue, I think!
Let us go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of the manipulation: manipulated in the direction of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for the "ancient vegetables", so idolized today!

Again, I'm not talking about selection here, but FORCE INTRUSION into the genome, without knowing the medium or long term consequences. As for the plants selected for the needs of man (sic) it is rather selected for industrial needs, they rather conform the needs of their customers to them. it's called marketing!
Biology is the same for everything that lives and the lessons we can learn from it are the same; and when the human pretends to have more knowledge and experience than that of all the billions of living beings that have lived without him, for millennia (others say millions but whatever) I find it conceited and dangerous to put the fate of life in the hands of these genius do-it-yourselfers, but history is behind us to remind us that badly employed genius has always generated disasters (maybe even global warming)

why always oppose what nature does (it's good) to what man does (it's bad) when they both do the same thing
you said elsewhere that a woodcutter who cuts a tree in the descending moon will have a wood that will not require treatment to keep it, so if the wind cuts down a tree in the descending moon this tree will not decompose?
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 09/01/19, 18:32

why always oppose what nature does (it's good) to what man does (it's bad) when they both do the same thing
do you really believe that? "nature" does neither good nor bad, it obeys universal laws, not human moral laws
you said elsewhere that a woodcutter who cuts a tree in the descending moon will have a wood that will not require treatment to keep it, so if the wind cuts down a tree in the descending moon this tree will not decompose?
It's up to the lumberjacks and carpenters to answer it, you must probably have some around you. Their words are therefore binding only on them and where their wood is parasitized and they lied (but since they have done so from generation to generation, they would have realized that this practice was not valid. has not parasitized since that time and that proves them right.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: what is GMO?




by Exnihiloest » 09/01/19, 21:11

Perseus wrote:...
In my opinion, genetic information should be subject to a functioning close to that which exists for free licenses (to put it simply: remain open, free access, free modification, free use, free reproduction ...). Of course, the modification of this information must go through the filter of rigorous and independent experimentation. This totally breaks the profitability potential of a GMO for a company.

I am afraid that this will condemn GMOs, given the level of investment required which will never pay off. The patent regime seems to me more relevant. The information is available, we create the product according to the patent and anyone can use it, and only commercial exploitation is subject to the payment of royalties, but all this for a given time, then it's free.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 10/01/19, 08:50

I am afraid that this will condemn GMOs, given the level of investment required which will never pay off. The patent regime seems to me more relevant. The information is available, we create the product according to the patent and anyone can use it, and only commercial exploitation is subject to the payment of royalties, but all this for a given time, then it's free.
another one who believes in Santa Claus! Labs haven't discovered anything new for a long time. Professor Even denounces this situation where it suffices to change a small patch on an existing product to be able to apply for a patent, which will be used as a miracle drug, more effective than the previous more effective, itself, than the previous one, etc. .
However, a patent does not guarantee the validity, and even less the effectiveness of a product, whatever, but of its originality only (Christophe knows something!) As for obtaining the AMM, it is necessary and sufficient that the new product is at least equivalent to its predecessor, but its price will explode during the patent period, ie 20 years of guaranteed profits. We really don't care about the mouth of Panurge sheep, paralyzed by fear and desire, superstitious, that it works for their case.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 10/01/19, 14:07

Janic wrote:
why always oppose what nature does (it's good) to what man does (it's bad) when they both do the same thing
do you really believe that? "nature" does neither good nor bad, it obeys universal laws, not human moral laws
you said elsewhere that a woodcutter who cuts a tree in the descending moon will have a wood that will not require treatment to keep it, so if the wind cuts down a tree in the descending moon this tree will not decompose?
It's up to the lumberjacks and carpenters to answer it, you must probably have some around you. Their words are therefore binding only on them and where their wood is parasitized and they lied (but since they have done so from generation to generation, they would have realized that this practice was not valid. has not parasitized since that time and that proves them right.

the woodcutters' blow comes from you, so the question was about:
do you think that if the wind cuts down a tree in the waning moon, it will not rot as the lumberjacks you have mentioned so well and have done for generations, can you answer this question simply and precisely
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 10/01/19, 14:10

Janic wrote:
why always oppose what nature does (it's good) to what man does (it's bad) when they both do the same thing
do you really believe that? "nature" does neither good nor bad, it obeys universal laws, not human moral laws

so why do you say that what is natural (here produces nature) is good and what is synthesized by man is bad (even if man copies nature identically)
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 10/01/19, 14:14

Janic wrote:
I am afraid that this will condemn GMOs, given the level of investment required which will never pay off. The patent regime seems to me more relevant. The information is available, we create the product according to the patent and anyone can use it, and only commercial exploitation is subject to the payment of royalties, but all this for a given time, then it's free.
another one who believes in Santa Claus! Labs haven't discovered anything new for a long time. Professor Even denounces this situation where it suffices to change a small patch on an existing product to be able to apply for a patent, which will be used as a miracle drug, more effective than the previous more effective, itself, than the previous one, etc. .
However, a patent does not guarantee the validity, and even less the effectiveness of a product, whatever, but of its originality only (Christophe knows something!) As for obtaining the AMM, it is necessary and sufficient that the new product is at least equivalent to its predecessor, but its price will explode during the patent period, ie 20 years of guaranteed profits. We really don't care about the mouth of Panurge sheep, paralyzed by fear and desire, superstitious, that it works for their case.

it was more or less true before, when safety was doing well, more with the arrival of generics
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 10/01/19, 17:39

it was more or less true before, when safety was doing well, more with the arrival of generics
profound error, generics are not available on the market until after the end of 20 years and this for any new drug on the market and they make gold balls with those who are supposed to work miracles on cancers at price defying all reason.
But India, which mainly makes generics, is trying to get around these patents (it's easy for all patents) by applying their own patents inspired by their models. The big drug manufacturers take a dim view of this because they don't charge them the same outrageous price for their model. In the event of a copy lawsuit, they know (because they do it themselves) that it is enough to drag things out until the patent deadline to extinguish any lawsuit, which is why these labs try to negotiate arrangements which are hardly accepted by India.
https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/e ... ts.N190962
"Not inventive enough". The Indian Supreme Court rejected this Monday, April 1, 2013, the appeal of the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis concerning the patent relating to its anticancer drug Glivec. Already, Wednesday, December 12, 2012, the Indian Patent Office had canceled the protection of an asthma drug designed by Merck. Blessed bread for the Indian generic manufacturer Cipla. He can thus flood the market with cheap copies of the American drug. Three months earlier, it was another Swiss, Roche, who bore the brunt of Indian intransigence. Since joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2005, India has yet ratified patent protection rules. Including for drugs. But its interpretation differs from that of Western countries. Like other emerging countries, it refuses to pay a high price for its population to have access to treatment. Even if it means calling into question the international rules of industrial property. A delicate showdown for Western laboratories who want to protect their dearly developed molecules, but also to penetrate these promising markets. According to research firm IMS Health, with more than 150 billion dollars (nearly 113 billion euros), Brazil, Russia, China, and South Africa are expected to account for two-thirds of global growth of the pharmaceutical market by 2016.

the puzzle countries
India only patents in case of therapeutic improvement.
Brazil and Thailand adhere to compulsory licenses.
China interprets intellectual property rules.


This new patent war crystallized in India. World leader in the production and export of generic drugs with giants like Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy's and Cipla, "the country is renowned for being the pharmacy of the third world", explains Olivier Moussa, associate lawyer at Roche lawyers. NGOs fear that the application of WTO rules will restrict its role as a supplier of cheap drugs. On November 29, 2012, a hundred associations around the world called on the Indian Supreme Court to rule against a legal action by the Swiss laboratory Novartis. The latter wants to have a new patent recognized for his anti-cancer drug Glivec. For Indian justice, this is only a different formulation of the product and not an innovation. However, it has decided to grant a patent only in the event of better therapeutic efficacy. On Monday April 1, 2013, the Indian Supreme Court finally decided to reject Novartis' patent application.

Three possible responses

To respond, Western laboratories are experimenting with three types of strategy. Under the pressure of public opinion, some prefer to give up the game. After three years of battle, 39 industrialists in 2001 withdrew their complaint against a law in South Africa intended to promote access to cheap treatment. "'The Pretoria affair' was a huge communication error in the pharmaceutical industry, observes Bernard Geneste, associate lawyer at CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre. Since then, we have regularly seen laboratories, such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), announce the update. free provision of treatments in developing countries. With the idea that immediate profitability is perhaps not the only criterion for valuing the company. " These manufacturers thus take into account the negative impact that a lawsuit can cause in the long term. And, conversely, the impact of a positive communication campaign ...

Other laboratories prefer to continue the legal battle, in order to enforce their intellectual property at all costs. On April 1, Novartis condemned the Indian Supreme Court's decision, accusing it of "discouraging innovative pharmaceutical discovery" in the emerging country. Will the group go so far as to take the matter to the WTO, thanks to Switzerland's political support? "On the part of India, it's protectionism, recognizes Élisabeth Hervier, who advises the pharmaceutical industry and who founded her firm in India. But we cannot deal with Asian countries, where social security is not covered. does not exist, like the European countries! The laboratory would rather have an interest in negotiating on the price: it would keep more volumes and its product would always have a higher price in Europe. " The American giant Pfizer has appealed following India's refusal to grant it a patent for an anticancer remedy. As for the German Bayer, his situation is delicate. The patent for its anti-cancer drug Nexavar runs until 2020. India, deeming its price "exorbitant", requires it to provide a "compulsory license" to the generic Natco Pharma. An initiative tolerated by a WTO agreement for public health objectives. The European's copy of the drug is expected to sell for $ 175 per monthly dose, a 97% drop from the original price. Bayer receiving in return a royalty of 6% of sales. No way, he replied. His complaint was dismissed in September by the Indian Intellectual Property Appeal Board.

We were the first company to join The medicines patent pool, the pharmaceutical patent community funded by Unitaid.

Michel Joly, President of Gilead France

The road to compromise

Faced with the threat of compulsory licenses brandished by several emerging countries (Brazil, South Africa or Thailand), some manufacturers prefer to innovate… in compromise. In India, Roche launched a pilot project a year ago. It is reducing the price of two cancer therapies, sold under different names and in different packaging, to avoid re-importation. An initiative already tested by Gilead, the Californian biotech leader in AIDS treatments. While they are running until 2017, it has licensed its patents to manufacturers (14 Indians and 1 South African) to produce quality treatments in large volumes and at low prices. These copies, which are not generics, now account for two-thirds of the treatments Gilead sells worldwide. "Then, in July 2011, we were the first company to join The Medicines patent pool, welcomes Michel Joly, President of Gilead France. We granted to this pool of pharmaceutical patents funded by Unitaid conditions similar to those made to our Indian partners. " Thanks to these agreements, its Stribild triple therapy, authorized since August 2012 in the United States, saw its generic version marketed at the same time in 100 emerging countries. Previously, it was generally necessary to wait ten to fifteen years for such a drug to be released there ...

Gaelle Fleitour

Publish… to protect yourself
It is an unexpected way to prevent competitors from establishing monopolies by filing patents. In 1999, ten laboratories published data on the human genome in the public domain. Eleven years later, the British GSK gives researchers access to the design of 13 chemical molecules capable of inhibiting the malaria agent. "In the field of living things, what concerns biotechs, industrial development and specific development must be able to be patented," explains Geneviève Fioraso, the Minister of Research. But researchers must have access to advances in research. Sixty of them are thus working on the deployment of an interoperable metabase of data on all living things, including those protected by a license.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3791
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 1311

Re: what is GMO?




by pedrodelavega » 10/01/19, 19:09

Janic wrote:
it was more or less true before, when safety was doing well, more with the arrival of generics
profound error, generics are not available on the market until after the end of 20 years and this for any new drug on the market and they make gold balls with those who are supposed to work miracles on cancers at price defying all reason.
But India, which mainly makes generics, is trying to get around these patents (it's easy for all patents) by applying their own patents inspired by their models. The big drug manufacturers take a dim view of this because they don't charge them the same outrageous price for their model.


india-the-lab-world-of-drugs-nonconforming
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article ... _3234.html
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 10/01/19, 19:46

india-the-lab-world-of-drugs-nonconforming
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article ... _3234.html

India is no more free of drug problems, including many imitations, than other countries. But the biggest scandals involve compliant drugs from major pharmaceutical companies such as vioxx and distilbene, plus the exorbitant price.
The patent for its anti-cancer drug Nexavar runs until 2020. India, deeming its price "exorbitant", requires it to provide a "compulsory license" to the generic Natco Pharma. An initiative tolerated by a WTO agreement for public health objectives. The European's copy of the drug is expected to sell for $ 175 per monthly dose, a decrease of 97% of the original price[*]. Bayer receives in return a royalty of 6% of sales. No way, he replied. His complaint was rejected in September by the Indian Intellectual Property Appeal Board.
[*] 5833 dollars of origin

NEXAVAR 200 mg, film-coated tablet, 4 28 blister pack
Therapeutic Classes: Oncology and Hematology
Antineoplastic drugs> Sorafenib
Price including VAT: 2,998,15 €
SS refund rate: 100%

Dosage
The recommended dose of Nexavar in adults is 400 mg sorafenib (2 200 tablets mg) twice daily (ie a total daily dose of 800 mg).
Treatment should be continued as long as a clinical benefit is observed or until the occurrence of unacceptable toxicity.

so 112: 8 = 14 days is per month 6531.7 euros, only for the drug instead of 196 euros!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 305 guests