Pharmaceutical company sells AIDS-infected medication

[Hazar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&search=Bayer

 

[Reginald]

To be honest I find that sicker than most of the murders I hear about and read about in the news. This is just disgusting.

I can't really see how anyone could do it.

 

[JNightshade]

Ugh, that's f*cking disgusting. Although it seems like it must be old news- the news ticker at the bottom was reporting the murder of John Geoghan as "breaking news". Still, that's beyond horrifying.

 

[Ren.182]

:|

Thats disgusting. How that was allowed to pass is beyond me. I agree with Reginald, they're worse than murderers.

So they kill loads of innocent kids and people who think they're getting cured, instead they're getting infected.

Sick F*cks! :|

 

[Hazar]

whoa, you guys had me worried there for a second when there were no replies; you almost had me post "and no one cares"

 

[Lemonking]

sorry guys, I dont belive this, just because this guys says so doesnt mean its true.if someone could post another source I might be convinceed but this doesnt cut it.

 

[BeaverMon]

All I can say is.... shit. That's really sad. Bayer should be sued for this.
What gets me is why did the Goverment OK it? Like they don't like the other side of the world? So it's ok to kill them?

 

[15357]

Um.... theres no proof except for a guy.

 

[Raziaar]

To be honest I find that sicker than most of the murders I hear about and read about in the news. This is just disgusting.

I can't really see how anyone could do it.

I don't see how you could say its sicker than most murders.

It's awful and terrible yes... but it's not awful on a degree higher than brutal murder.

Bayer needs to get ****ed up for this one.

 

[Gunner]

This happened two decades ago by the way:

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php

 

[gick]

Hardly suprising. Bayer has a long history of this sort of thing. They manufactured the Zyklon B for use in Hitler's gas chambers too.

But hey, we cant prosecute these people because THAT WOULD BE EVIL SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!

 

[3ssence]

If what was said in that video was in fact the case (i.e. true) then there should be no excuse for not taking action against Bayer. It is effectively knowingly causing people's deaths for someones own profit. It's absolutely disgusting, and it is beyond me how something like this could be "overlooked"

Well actually, i lie, when i think about it, a company like Bayer has enough money that maybe something underhand (money changing hands) could have been the reason for this.... which is just as sick, that any individual could allow something like this to slide in exchange for money. That would make them as guilty as the members of Bayer involved as far as i am concerned.

Man, i find this hard to believe, i really do.

 

[CptStern]

pretty horrible ..but this sort of thing happens all the time unforetunately ..although in this case it'd be hard to disprove malicious intent


other examples of drug company dirty little secrets


Pfizer uses human giunea pigs to study untested meningitis medication in africa ..5 children died many others left with physical disabilities (crippled)

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1190.cfm


GlaxoSmithKline ignores reports that their malaria drugs being diluted and given to african children at such low dosages that they are ineffective. GlaxoSmithKline fears wide reporting of the problem would lead to bad press for product
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10650

 

[VictimOfScience]

Horrific, but it is not surprising at all unfortunately. Corporations will do anything to make a profit and everything else be damned.

 

[Adidajs]

pretty horrible ..but this sort of thing happens all the time unforetunately ..although in this case it'd be hard to disprove malicious intent


other examples of drug company dirty little secrets


Pfizer uses human giunea pigs to study untested meningitis medication in africa ..5 children died many others left with physical disabilities (crippled)

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1190.cfm


GlaxoSmithKline ignores reports that their malaria drugs being diluted and given to african children at such low dosages that they are ineffective. GlaxoSmithKline fears wide reporting of the problem would lead to bad press for product
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10650

Despite 100% efficacy in an animal model, there is never a guarantee that it will be effective in humans. BTW, these pharmaceutical companies, despite our hope, are not that benevolent. They are in business to make money.

 

[CptStern]

in the particular case of pfizer they used children as giunea pigs because they couldnt do it with western subjects ...business or not, that's no excuse for putting people's lives at risk

 

[3ssence]

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no excuse for putting people's lives at risk. This is why we have animal models in which to test drugs, although apparently this is bad and unfair to animals, so maybe pfizer are just trying to please animal activists ? (j/k)

This is something i can never understand, animal activists propose that using animals for testing is wrong, yet they cannot provide another valid method.

"In vitro drug testing" !! they may cry, but unfortunately an in vitro system is very different from that of the human, or rodent, etc.. system, and therefore will not give an accurate idea of how effective a drug is, or any side-effects that it may possess.

Anyways, sorry for going slightly off topic !!

Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are in it for one thing, the money, even if they might have you believe the opposite.

 

[el Chi]

This beggars belief, it really does. The people responsible deserve to spend the rest of their miserable existences behind bars, stripped of any money they have made through those deals.

these pharmaceutical companies, despite our hope, are not that benevolent. They are in business to make money.

They may not be benevolent, but they are bound by ethical guidelines and, one would hope, by sheer human decency. But apparently not. Their desire and motivation to make money does not excuse what these reprehensible individuals have done.

I don't think that pharmaceutical companies are just in it for the money. For the most part, companies do a good job at developing medications and cures, etc.

 

[CptStern]

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no excuse for putting people's lives at risk. This is why we have animal models in which to test drugs, although apparently this is bad and unfair to animals, so maybe pfizer are just trying to please animal activists ? (j/k)

the majority of animals tested are not for the pharmaceutical comanies, but rather for animal medication as well as cosmetic and cleaning product companies ...usually to test things like allergies etc ..using animals as test subject for life saving drugs is not the norm ..our physiologies are just too dissimiliar ..oh and this comes from first hand experience as my sister in law is a lawyer who was emplyed by humane societies across north america to conduct inspections on animal testing labs

"In vitro drug testing" !! they may cry, but unfortunately an in vitro system is very different from that of the human, or rodent, etc.. system, and therefore will not give an accurate idea of how effective a drug is, or any side-effects that it may possess.

the same goes for the bulk of testing on animals ...they're just too different



Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are in it for one thing, the money, even if they might have you believe the opposite.[/QUOTE]

 

[3ssence]

the majority of animals tested are not for the pharmaceutical comanies, but rather for animal medication as well as cosmetic and cleaning product companies ...usually to test things like allergies etc ..using animals as test subject for life saving drugs is not the norm ..our physiologies are just too dissimiliar ..oh and this comes from first hand experience as my sister in law is a lawyer who was emplyed by humane societies across north america to conduct inspections on animal testing labs





the same goes for the bulk of testing on animals ...they're just too different

Ignoring cosmetics etc, drug companies are still singled out and targetted for their use of animals for development of human medications and drugs. And i can tell you that it's surprising how similiar some of our physiologies actually are and that in some cases animal models can quite accurately model a human disease, providing good information on a drugs effect. In vivo systems model human disease and drug response far more accurately than in vitro, hence their use. An in vitro system can't model the sheer number of pharmacological interactions occuring in a living being. This also comes from first hand experience as i have a pharmacology degree and work for a pharmaceutical company, using animal models myself.

I agree that they may not be perfect, but they are the best available research tool at present, therefore until an alternative is developed, they will be used.

 

[Adidajs]

Have you guys seen the Constant Gardener? it's basically about this issue.

 

[CptStern]

Ignoring cosmetics etc, drug companies are still singled out and targetted for their use of animals for development of human medications and drugs. And i can tell you that it's surprising how similiar some of our physiologies actually are and that in some cases animal models can quite accurately model a human disease, providing good information on a drugs effect. In vivo systems model human disease and drug response far more accurately than in vitro, hence their use. An in vitro system can't model the sheer number of pharmacological interactions occuring in a living being. This also comes from first hand experience as i have a pharmacology degree and work for a pharmaceutical company, using animal models myself.

I agree that they may not be perfect, but they are the best available research tool at present, therefore until an alternative is developed, they will be used.

drug testing of animals is completely ineffectual in the sense that it CANT give the researchers indicators whether the drug in question works or not because the subject isnt human ..the animals are only used to study adverse effects associated with the drug in question (and even then the drug companies are using volunteers as opposed to animals because for a lot less money they can have direct feedback) ..they're rarely ever used for direct animal to human comparisons ..only initially to see adverse effects

here read this
http://www.theecologist.org/current_issue/animal_testing.htm



Adidajs: I saw it last week ..the next day I heard of the pfizer story which is almost exactly like in the constant gardner

 

[CrazyHarij]

Have you guys seen the Constant Gardener? it's basically about this issue.

yeah, quite a good film in my opinion

 

[3ssence]

drug testing of animals is completely ineffectual in the sense that it CANT give the researchers indicators whether the drug in question works or not because the subject isnt human ..the animals are only used to study adverse effects associated with the drug in question (and even then the drug companies are using volunteers as opposed to animals because for a lot less money they can have direct feedback) ..they're rarely ever used for direct animal to human comparisons ..only initially to see adverse effects

To the contrary, many animal models are used to test the positive effects..... In fact, the exact reason a majority of animal models are used is as a direct comparison to the human form of a disease. For example, in an MS model (EAE in mouse, or rat) quantitative analysis will provide information on neuronal/axonal protection, demyelination, remyelination, and this is how success of the drugs is often quantified. This is the same with many other diseases, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Arthritis, Asthma, Cardio diseases, Cancer. I don't know who you've been talking to, but i'm afraid your above statement is incorrect and misleading. No offence intended, but i'm slightly dumbfounded by such a rash statement.

It's all well and good posting a link to an article that describes animal testing as "flawed", but as with many subjects, for every article slating something, you could find one that says the opposite. I don't disagree that there are flaws in animal testing but this statement:

they're rarely ever used for direct animal to human comparisons ..only initially to see adverse effects

is false. Maybe just your opinion ? But that does not make it the truth.

In that article it mentions drugs that have been tested in animals and are supposedly safe, yet have had consequences in humans, so are we assuming from this that this the only reason that animal models are used ? Because you'll find that it is merely one area of investigation where animal models are involved. After all, it would make sense to test for any side effects whilst also monitoring the positive effects of drugs.

Anyway, that's all i have to say on the matter, as i've seen in past threads where you are involved this could go on for sometime, and you are unlikely to agree with anything said that is in opposition to your views, so i'd just be wasting my time !!!!