Re: GREED Drives Pharma

From: tcomeau (tunderbar_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: 19 Jun 2004 19:36:03 -0700

"Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<10d7tah87kuq62a@corp.supernews.com>...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0406180614.58467f38@posting.google.com...
> > "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<10d3vddh4cs06f5@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b550f406.0406170557.1eb0ddf6@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<10d2edp6bm8c56c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Greed is good
> when
> > > > > balanced with a social conscience. When left
> > > > > > completely unfettered it follows a scorched-earth policy that is
> > > > > > un-sustainable and in this case is sickening and killing millions.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is good greed and you mention the bad form of greed but greed
> is
> part
> > > > > of human nature and you can't eliminate it simply because you don't
> like
> it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The *only* good greed is the one that is balanced with a social
> > > > concience.
> > >
> > > No, social concience has institutionalized greed to make it accepted. I
> > > spill a cup of hot coffee on myself and blame it on the store I bought
> it at
> > > and win millions of dollares. It is legal and accepted by society.
> >
> > Neither of these two examples of greed (pharma and hot-coffee
> > lawsuits) has anything to do with social concience nor does it
> > illustrate that social concience has anything to do with
> > institutionalization of greed. That is your own construct and your own
> > disjointed and strange interpretation.
> >
> > Unfettered free enterprise has made greed acceptable and
> > institutionalized.
>
> Unfettered free enterprise "is" the social conscience. It was intentionally
> made unfettered by the institutions and the community. It was made that way
> by direct intent, it just didn't happen on it's own. It doesn't happen by
> random acts.
>

That is nonsense.

> >
> > > People give to charieties because it is tax deductable.
> >
> > Hardly an example of greed. More like fiscal prudence. If the rules
> > allow it and a charity can use it, why not?
>
> I never said there was anything wrong with it only relating the mind set of
> people in general. When they become presidents of corporations they don't
> leave their psyche behind.
> Drug companies give gifts all the time and it is not against the law so we
> both agree theirs nothing wrong with it.
>

There is nothing inherently wrong with the giving. The problem is in
the accepting and the corruption of those doing the accepting.

> >
> > > You have people fighting over funds for research. The HIV people vs the
> > > cancer people and the men's health issues vs the women's health issues.
> > > Is it noble to support AID's research when funding was taken out of
> cancer
> > > research?
> >
> > You have all kinds of researchers looking to get rich of of the funds
> > earmarked for this research. Many of them will do useless research
> > simply to get the funding. They are greedy and are a cancer upon the
> > face of the earth.
>
> Most of the researchers are like that and the ones who don't worry about
> funding are corporate researchers. It seems you don't like any researchers.
>

Only the greedy ones without conciences.

> > > How can you get an independent medical opinion from doctors who are
> bought
> > > buy the drug companies and read articles written by those same
> companies?
> > > The answer is that it has been going on for many years and you simply
> find
> > > somebody you can trust until he does something that is untrustworthy.
> >
> > I did not say anything about an independent opinion. I said an
> > opinion. Doctors cannot be trusted to make the final decision
> > regarding your health care. That is your responsibility.
> Unless you can pay for your own health care those decisions are made for you
> whether you like it or not. You can refuse anything you like you can't just
> ask for anything you want.
>

Bull***. I make the decisions, period. I can as for an opinion and I
will get one. Why? Because in Canada the doctors, as ill trained as
they are, are virtually civil servants. And that is the way it ought
to be. Except for the poor training part.

> > >
> > > We have and we do. People were dying with AIDS within months. They,
> people
> > > with HIV, protested and wanted changes handcuffing the drug companies.
> Fast
> > > track examptions were passed and many newer drugs were developed and put
> in
> > > use. This was unprecedented and completely opposite of what people here
> are
> > > asking for. They made it easier on the drug companies for patent money
> > > making and lawsuits and toxicity etc.
> > > Bottom line people are living with HIV for years now.
> > > Clamp down on everybody and you get no change for years and years.
> > >
> >
> > You may, I don't.
> >
> > Are you aware that the HIV/AIDS connection has never been shown to
> > meet Koch's Postulates. The AIDS debacle is another example of
> > unfettered greed in the medical and reseach field.
>
> You wrong there as it has passed Koch's postulates through laboratory
> accidents. Pure cultures of HIV needle stick at CDC and the person later
> died.
>

Show me the study or report that demonstrates clearly that it has met
Koch's postulates. Give me the name of one person who has died from
HIV/AIDS from a needle stick. Give me the name of even one person that
has been demonstrated to be HIV positive from only a needle stick and
who later developed anything even resembling any of the symptoms of
AIDS.

> > > > these researchers fudge the numbers, and when they get caught fudging
> > > > the numbers they should be appropriately flogged publicly.
> > > It is too costly to do so and a waste of time. The FDA, one this rich
> > > country does not have the money.
> >
> > Bull***. What a friggin' cop out. We cannot afford to continue
> > without checks and balances. Without these checks and balances we are
> > just killing people for the sake of greed and profits.
>
> You will kill people with or without greed. Without greed then no research
> will be done and people will die. With research people will die as a result
> of the research. We are talking about which is worse.
> Checks and balances comes from Darwin and not from the government. You don't
> trust doctors but you trust government officials to oversee the companies,
> nice!!!!

Bull***. The best science ever done was done with absolutely no
industry funding. The only thing that industry driven research has
produced is products to market. Few, if any products produced this way
has cured anyone of anything or provided even a modicum of
nutritionally useful food. The crap it produces and markets has killed
more people than will ever suffer by having to do without these
useless and often dangerous products.

> >
> > > If the finding are valid and it works then others will prosper through
> > > making money.
> > > People take drugs for conditions to help them out and if it doesn't help
> > > them out then they don't take them.
> > > Fudging numbers is common but if its an important study it will be found
> out
> > > later with follow-up studies.
> >
> > Fudging numbers is the name of the game, buddy. Later when people have
> > died. I'd rather we have the system in place to catch the fudged
> > number up front and prosecute people than release drugs that will kill
> > people.
>
> ALL DRUGS CAN KILL with some more than others as there is no such thing as a
> safe drug period. Thanks to greed then the news spreads and people make
> money off of it. Silicon implants, Phen-Phen, you can go on and on and that
> is the CHECK you can take to the bank.
> >

And when studies show clearly that these deadly drugs are useless and
these studies are hidden from the FDA and the public because of greed,
it becomes even more tragic and reprehensible. If the studies were not
hidden in the first place, the drug would never make it to market
where it can and does kill people. Drugs don't kill people, greed
kills people.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Researchers should have to declare their financial interests up front
> > > > and we will take that into account when we throw their research in the
> > > > waste basket. Doctors should take nothing from pharmaceutical reps for
> > > > fear of being accordingly tainted by what amounts to a bribe.
> > > They did a study about how many people cheat on their income tax
> returns.
> > > Did you know you are not suppose to do that?
> > >
> >
> > And you point would be???????
>
> You have a higher expectation from company workers then you do of your
> neighbors.
>
> >
> > > > Universities should clearly state its industry funding and not allow
> > > > it to dictate their curriculums. Non-profit organizations should
> > > > avoid, at all costs, taking money from industry sources, because to do
> > > > so taints them.
> > >
> > > That is really childish and I do not know of any Non-profit organization
> > > that will not take money from industry. You are way off there.
> > >
> >
> > Why is it childish to expect scientific integrity from an institution
> > of advanced learning? Should they not teach the scientific truth to
> > their paying clients that are taking the courses?
>
> What in the world are you talking about? Scientific truth?
> You mean the one that says without any money their is no scientific truths.
> Philosophy is cheap, you really don't need any equipment or testing.
>

Bull***. Without industry money, there would still be plenty of
scientific inquiry going on, the major difference would be that we
could actually count on most of it being decent truth seeking science.
Less garbage science and more real science. In this case less *is*
more. It would restore some credibility to the nutritional and
pharmaceutical sciences.

> >
> > Is it childish to expect non-profit organizations to be independent of
> > industry? If they accept money from industry and adjust their policies
> > and operations accordingly then they are no longer working independent
> > of profit then aren't they? They are working on behalf of for-profit
> > organizations, aren't they? The moment it can be shown that they have
> > taken money from a for-profit organization, they should lose their
> > non-profit status, period.
>
> In your world I am sure. There is also no hunger in your world or wars too
> right?
> The collective thought in this world says you are nuts.
>

This statement illustrates clearly that when you cannot respond with
logic you veer off into lala land and chose to make nonsensical
ramblings and that you, my friend, are fairly close to being "nuts".

> >
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing wrong with free enterprise as long as we all
> > > > understand the concepts of corruption, conflict of interest,
> > > > professional integrity and independence. And as long as we are clear
> > > > as to the financial interest involved for each and every participant
> > > > in the medical and research fields.
> > > >
> > > > Unfettered, unchecked and hidden from public scrutiny, greed destroys
> > > > the basic integrity of science. The perfect example of this is the
> > > > sciences of nutrition and drugs.
> > > >
> > > > TC
> >
> > You and I have a fundamental difference of thought. I can distinguish
> > wrong from right and you can't.
> >
> > TC

I repeat, you have no concept of right or wrong.

TC