Subject: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Acorn4 Date: 13 Aug 09 - 07:21 AM So we now discover that Tamiflu is probably a big a health risk as Swine Flu itself, and we haven't even started the mass innoculation program yet. There has even been a suggestion by the pharmaceutical barons that all people in the UK need to be on blood pressure pills even if their blood pressure is normal. Should anyone in the medical profession be obliged to declare any involvement financially with a drug company, just as MPs are now obliged to declare vested interests. Or an I just being paranoid? |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 13 Aug 09 - 12:44 PM Drug companies, banks, and insurance companies all seem to have adopted the attitude that society exists to serve their interests. I think it would be wonderful if the current crop of upper level execs in all three industries were loaded onto a cruise ship which would be torpedoed in shark infested waters. Then, perhaps a new bunch who at least possess a vague understanding of the idea that their industries exist to serve society, not vice versa, could rise to the top. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Aug 09 - 01:32 PM As a matter of capitalist economic theory, companies exist to serve the interests of their shareholders - and through "the invisible hand" this somehow furthers the best interests of all. The theory assumes rational and informed consumers, and is therefore itself irrational. The reality of the matter is Mr Madoff. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Ebbie Date: 13 Aug 09 - 01:59 PM The problem is that getting rid of the scum - as if we could!- would not solve anything. We could return to feudal days where each region governs itself- and we'd soon find that we had *leaders* and soon enough discover that our leaders were concerned almost entirely only with their own wellbeing, our own good fortune of consideration only after their own. That is US. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Aug 09 - 02:19 PM Yes, Ebbie. One needs a different kind of a social system altogether, one where money is not the primary incentive. Such things have been discussed in books and on at least one TV show (Star Trek), but they have not been tried lately. The primary incentive in a healthy society should be the work itself, and the satisfaction derived from doing an excellent job, and the respect and promotion that naturally accrues to those who DO do an excellent job. That was the principle of the society envisioned on Star Trek, and it IS possible to set up such a society, but not while those in charge of decision-making are tied to the love of money. And as it says in the Bible "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil". Not money itself. The love of money. The love of money above all else. That is the root of social evil. Are the drug companies as bad as bankers? Yes, they are. Maybe even worse, but that's hard to say. I have never in my life taken a flu shot, and I am none the worse so far for having made that decision. I suspect, in fact, that I am considerably healthier for having made that decision...although I'm sure there are those who would scoff at the notion. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Leadbelly Date: 13 Aug 09 - 04:16 PM "Are the drug companies as bad as bankers? Yes, they are." No, they are not. Forget flu. That's an extreme example. There are enough other and better examples like treatments of cancer, infections, heart failure aso which can be treated by drugs from this industry. At least, effective drugs do help people and most often save patients lifes. Bankers recommendations often do not help poeple and sometimes ruin their lifes. It's true, that new effective drugs most often are very high priced because it costs a lot of money to find new and effective compounds. And sometimes the comparative advantage over older drugs is only marginal. But in total, it's not correct to compare the pharmaceutical industry to bloody bankers and insurance companies. By the way, don't forget to mention the oil industries, electricity, gas, water aso. THEY take what they get. Manfred |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:12 PM Oh, I'm not saying they don't do some good too Manfred. So do all the others you mentioned (banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc). They all do some good, but I'm saying they're in it for the money. The money comes first for the drug companies, and therein lies the problem. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Aug 09 - 06:22 PM But why does it have to be done by private companies rather than by non-profit scientific trusts? Staffed by people working for a living and enjoying doing useful work in a field which enables them to use their skills to the full. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Michael Harrison Date: 13 Aug 09 - 08:02 PM No, not as bad as bankers - worse than bankers - peoples lives are at stake; money can always be replaced. Cheers,.............mwh |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don Firth Date: 14 Aug 09 - 01:19 AM Staunch advocates of Capitalism maintain that evil, greedy men doing evil, greedy things, if left to their own devices, will eventually create Paradise on earth. Well, maybe I'm just being negative, but somehow I'm not real sure about that. . . . Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 01:49 AM You're most definitely not just being negative, Don. ;-) You're taking note of a completely bankrupt and invalid philosophy whose self-serving mendacity should be plain for anyone to see if they gave it a modicum of real thought. Funny how few people nowadays seem to remember that Christ (reputedly) threw the moneylenders out of the temple...and even fewer seem to ask themselves why. Because it was the only way to restore the temple to its proper purposes, that's why. The moneylenders have been allowed into our secular "temples", metaphorically speaking...that is, they have been allowed to take control of our society at the highest levels, and that spells disaster for society in general...huge profits for a few greedy men at the expense of the rest of humanity. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Leadbelly Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:53 AM "The money comes first for the drug companies, and therein lies the problem." Little Hawk, if so, what's your opiniom about medical doctors? They are accomplices of the pharmaceutical industries because they are responsible for precriptions of expensive branded prescription drugs instead of cheaper generics. And what about pharmacies? They earn a lot of money only by distributing drugs. Well, sometimes they give recommendations... |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Acorn4 Date: 14 Aug 09 - 09:05 AM I remember that when my mother reached middle age she was always complaining about her "nerves", and many women at the time seemed to be going through the same thing. When I got older I discovered that this was a thing called the menopause which is basically a natural process. The answer of the medical profession at the time was to issue drugs like vallium as if they were dishing out smarties. Thus the person who was suffering from a perfectly natural, though difficult condition became a "victim". I spent about eighteen months visiting a nursing home and the evidence of the destructiveness of this type of drug on much of a generation was plain to see there. Michael Jackson must have had so many pills in him when he died that he probably rattled! |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 01:13 PM My opinion about medical doctors, leadbelly, is that they are ordinary people like you and me who go to medical school for a variety of perfectly understandable and good reasons, and who generally try to do the best they can for their patients. I think, however, that they are unduly influenced in their behaviour by the drug companies...and that that leads to doctors prescribing far more drugs for people than are really needed, and actually causing harm in many cases by so doing. It's not their intention to cause harm, but they are influenced by a larger money-driven system and bureaucracy that's in place all around them. It is that system I am concerned about. Public health of a nation should not be based on profit at all...it should be seen as an absolute necessity...like putting out fires. It is an essential service to keep the people of a nation healthy, because a nation is an extended family. You don't protect the health of your children because someone PAYS you to do it. You protect the health of your children because it's the right thing to do...because you love your children and care about your children and want them to live and be happy. You happily do it for NOTHING because you value your children. A government should love and care for its own people that way when they are in medical need...not let private industry profit off their illnesses like a huge vulture. A government is meant to SERVE the public. When was that forgotten? The truth of our present society is that the public is being made to serve the government and private industry. The public is nothing more than a bunch of helpless slaves in our ever more draconian $ySStem, and we all pay daily to keep the wolf from the door. The wolf is running the government, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the armed forces, the police force, the secret service, and the other major power structures. The reality of our societies is the exact diametrical opposite of what government was orginally intended to be: the servant OF the people. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:06 PM Just for once......WHAT LH JUST SAID! Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Donuel Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:14 PM Damn the Bankers and Drug Barons! the best is yet to come. Good doctors like good carpenters can be sold a bad tool that causes injury or death. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Partridge Date: 14 Aug 09 - 03:38 PM As far as I can see drug companies are in it to keep us ill so that they can keep selling us drugs that dont make us better - just controling symtoms Hell if they make you better they cant get anymore money from you - what is there impetus to make you well! |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 04:04 PM Bingo! You just won the jackpot, Partridge. (and all you get for that is a grim realization of the truth) |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Leadbelly Date: 14 Aug 09 - 05:45 PM "My opinion about medical doctors, leadbelly, is that they are ordinary people like you and me". Indeed, they are highly ordinary, Little Hawk. In former decades, most people only became medical doctors because of vocation, i.e. to help patients without any extreme interest in earning a lot of money. This ethical attitude has changed over the time. Medical doctors of today most often started their studies because of earning -as said- a lot of money. They don't have this ethical feeling to help people in first place. I'm aware in what I am talking about because I have had some jobs in the pharmaceutical industry as marketing research mananger in several companies. Most of doctors are corrupt. Money makes the world go around... "Public health of a nation should not be based on profit at all." Sounds good and I do agree! But it's highly idealistic. Perhaps such a system in communist countries works resp. can be established. Apart from this it's a matter of fact than real progress in pharmaceutical research, i.e. in finding new and effective compounds was made by companies in western countries. What's the reason behind this? These companies are investigating much money in order to get much more money back before expiry of patent. That's the result of free economy. On the other hand, no western government would be willing to invest so much money to find new substances. And even if they decide to take part in this business: it's a matter of fact, that only a very limited number of new compounds came from communist countries within the last decades. I don't believe that western governments are reaching better results by doing research on a non profit base. What I want to make clear is that we need the competition of pharmaceutical companies to guarantee the ongoing research in finding new compounds. And by no means these companies are worse than bankers. We don't need bankers, but sometimes we do need drugs. You and me: we don't need credits/loans from bankers. Other services can be/ must be taken in modern times. But no credits for ordinary people. It's another cup of tea whether all new drugs introduced to the market are really necessary and -above all- have to be comparatively expensive. And sometimes they can be dangerous like Valium (Agreed Acorn 4 !)and many other drugs because of side-effects and potential of abuse. Manfred from Germany |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 06:35 PM I understand your points, Manfred. Yes, competition is a good thing because it helps drive innovation and improvement. And, yes, you do tend to have more of it under a free enterprise system... But...you can definitely have very real competition in a socialist system too....for example: before, during, and after WWII the Soviet government, like other governments, would submit a request to several different independent socialist design bureaus to present prototypes for a new fighter or bomber aircraft. The aircraft would have to meet certain new requirements in speed, armament, cost, etc. Those bureaus were identified as Mig (Mikoyan & Gurevitch), Yak (Alexander Yakovlev), Lagg (Lavochkin, Godunov, etc), Polikarpov, etc. They all DID compete vigorously against each other to produce the best design...and the politburo then selected the winner after flight tests were done and the prototype planes were evaluated. The prize to the winner was that his design got mass produced and he reaped the political, financial, and other numerous rewards of his plane and his bureau winning the contract. This was quite similar to what happened in the capitalist countries such as the USA or Germamy or the UK, although the design bureaus in those countries of course belonged to entirely private companies (Boeing, Messerschmitt, Avro, Focke-Wulf, Arado, Short, Supermarine, Junkers, Dornier, Consolidated, Grumman, etc.). The end result was the same. The best airplane design won....usually. (On some fairly rare occasions the best design might not win because its company had more political or financial pull with the government!!!) ;-) What you say about the doctors...I tend to agree with you...but I wanted to go a little easy on them, because I've known some doctors in my life who genuinely did their very best to help people in the right way. I've known others who I would say were mainly in it just for the money. I think I agree that the bankers are worse overall than the drug companies. They are parasites on society, whereas the drug companies at least partially do supply something that is really needed. Did you know that the American Federal Reserve...which sounds like it is part of the government...is really a huge privately owned banking system? And that it is in control of the American dollar? The American government is financially at the mercy of a gigantic privately owned corporation called "the Federal Reserve". Who does the Federal Reserve work for? Themselves! Not the public. Themselves. They are in it to make profits for themselves. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Aug 09 - 07:47 PM ""The money comes first for the drug companies, and therein lies the problem." Little Hawk, if so, what's your opiniom about medical doctors? They are accomplices of the pharmaceutical industries because they are responsible for precriptions of expensive branded prescription drugs instead of cheaper generics."" First of all let's get rid of the nonsense that is spouted about doctors. When a new drug is discovered, the drug company is awarded what amounts to a patent, which confers the sole right to manufacture and distribute THAT drug for a fixed period of time. There is therefor no generic alternative for doctors to prescribe during that period, and, by the time the "patent" expires, patients have become used to that name, and often REFUSE the generic alternative because they think they are being fobbed off with a cheap imitation. None of this can be laid at the doctors' door With regard to the drug companies, the situation is quite different. They claim that the high price of many drugs is due to the massive research and development outlay involved, which must be recovered over a strictly limited time period. I refer to this as the "Microsoft Defence", since it is the exact EXCUSE that Microsoft use to justify the extortionate price of their software. The fact is that, with a very small number of exceptions, they will be selling millions, or even billions of units, and when the capital outlay and overheads are divided among that level of sales, cost per unit amounts for a tiny percentage of what they charge the end user. In a very few cases, the drug will benefit small numbers of patients, and a high unit price will be justifiable. There is also the cry that they only get new drugs from a small percentage of their research, but this to me is a red herring. Who else expects to be paid for failure (except of course bankers). So, YES! I suppose in terms of their honesty and ethics they ARE just as bad as the bankers. Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Aug 09 - 08:07 PM The flaw in the system is that the true value of a drug is the impact it has on the health of the community, and of the people who make up the community, whereas the market test - what will make the most money in sales - bears virtually no relationship to this. A drug which was cheap to producee and which cured a disease outright would be less profitable than one which held a disease at bay and needed to be taken for a long period. A drug which cured a serious disease which mainly affected poor people would be less profitable than one which cured, or preferably maintained, a relatively mild disease which primarily affected rich people. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 10:08 PM Don, mon petit gâteau de banane, you are absolutely right in what you said in your last excellent post. Merci! |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:30 PM Well, Don, to be picky, it is not "something like a patent", but a patent, as such, and a patent can only be gained (in the UK system, the US in this as many other aspects of intellectual property is something of a maverick) for an invention, not a discovery. But otherwise, I again agree. We will prise you away from conservative dogma yet: you seem to see quite a number of the socialist truths. Just don't get me started on plant variety rights! |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Aug 09 - 11:32 PM Or primate rights either... |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Aug 09 - 03:23 AM I prefer lefts |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Aug 09 - 09:27 AM You shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about what goes on in other people's minds Richard. It is perfectly possible to espouse the basic principles and concepts of UK Conservatism, while still having concern for those less fortunate than oneself. Your trouble is that once you decide that one way is wrong, it becomes totally without merit in your cosmic perception, and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, deluded, evil, or perm combination of the three. Tories are no more inherently evil than socialists. It is the mistakes they make that cause problems, not the fact that they are right or left wing in their views. I am a firm believer in the Conservative principle of allowing citizens to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives, their finances, and their property. I am disgusted by the "Nanny State" mentality of New Labour, which is in any case a cover for their obsessive need to CONTROL EVERYTHING. At the same time I have concern for those citizens who need help to manage. I don't want to see ONE person getting less than his needs. So that is the point where I INSIST that my government should ACT, and if the government confined itself to that level of action, it would improve immensely its capacity to do a good job. Instead of trying to tear down those who CAN manage their affairs successfully, government should be about ENABLING those who currently cannot. I can't believe that anyone but the most blinkered communist would want to REDUCE quality of life to its lowest common level, rather than RAISE it to the level of the higher achievers. Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Aug 09 - 01:18 PM The best path is the middle path. That is, a healthy combination of socialism (where it's useful and needed) and capitalism (where it's useful and needed). The middle path will not please fanatics, whether they be of the Right or the Left. Fanatics are never easy people to please because they see things only in black and white (all or nothing)...and when they get their way they perpetrate horrors upon society. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Aug 09 - 08:01 PM Instead of trying to tear down those who CAN manage their affairs successfully, For example paying themselves massive bonuses on top of massive salaries for screwing up things... "High achievement" is not the same as getting lots of moiney. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Acorn4 Date: 16 Aug 09 - 09:33 AM I always remember a story that my grandfather told of the scourge of a disease called diphtheria. Apparently the disease caused the throat to swell up until the victim literally choked. One of the only known cures was to put a red hot poker down the throat thus cauterising the infection. My grandfather had this done, and as a result survived the disease. He told me how his younger baby brother was not old enough and he remembers his mother holding the baby up to the open window to try to get air before he died. In this case innoculation was obviously a godsend when it was introduced. Fast forward a bit to the years just after the Second War . It was accepted that all children should get measles, mumps and chicken pox and would then have natural immunity for life. None of these diseases struck terror into mothers the way the diphtheria and other such diseases. Measles, mumps and chicken pox can all of course be fatal in some cases where there are complications but we are fast entering on a system which pumps ever more innoculations into ever younger babies, as we swallow the propaganda that the drug companies and where the danger from the vaccines is equivalent to or even greater than the diseases themselves. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Aug 09 - 11:54 AM ""For example paying themselves massive bonuses on top of massive salaries for screwing up things... "High achievement" is not the same as getting lots of moiney."" Absolutely right Kevin, and, as I supect you already know, I am not stupid enough to believe that it is a) desirable or b) POSSIBLE to elevate quality of life to that standard for all. You know damn well that the higher achievers I was referring to are those who are sufficiently well off to manage (I hate the term, but so that YOU will understand, Lower Middle Class, maybe Middle Class). But hey! why let common sense get in the way of enjoying a snide dig at anyone who suggests that New Labour don't have a f**king clue? ENJOY! Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don Firth Date: 16 Aug 09 - 04:41 PM ". . . as we swallow the propaganda that the drug companies and where the danger from the vaccines is equivalent to or even greater than the diseases themselves." There is some speculation that recent increases in such conditions as Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism, Asperger's Syndrome and such might possibly be traced to the recent practice of universally inoculating very young children against everything from measles to chicken pox to meteor strikes. I don't believe there is any research into the matter being conducted by pharmaceutical companies. . . . Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Aug 09 - 02:53 PM So who is "trying to tear down those who CAN manage their affairs successfully"? And what does that involve doing? I'd agree with your verdict on New Labouyr, but from a slightly different point of view, Don T. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Donuel Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:12 PM Little Hawk, the closer you get to the truth of the sickening control of the world by Financiers, the more likely you may have a stroke so Relax and do what lobbyists did to health care reform. Make folks angry and shouting mad at the real guys and gals who shafted thier savings, invesments and mortgages. The problem is they don't have town hall meetings. PS those Bilderburg meetings... The attendees are only reps so don't expect to get a glimpse of the 110 richest pricks in the world. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:19 PM Well, I'm interested to know about it, Donuel, but I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it...because I know I myself can't do anything about it, and there's no point in worrying about things one can't do anything about. I try instead to live in the present. Right now. And right now is okay. This is just one incarnation, you see. It's temporary. But it will always be the present. I guarantee that. No matter where or when you go...there you are. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Stu Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:47 PM "There is also the cry that they only get new drugs from a small percentage of their research, but this to me is a red herring. Who else expects to be paid for failure (except of course bankers)." They're not being paid for failure, they are recovering the cost of research. For every drug that finally makes it through phase III clinical trials, gains a licence and goes to market literally hundreds of other compounds will have been identified and tested. Someone needs to find out if these have potential and if they do how they can be made to work, if they are safe, effective and how they can be manufactured in industrial quantities for distribution. All of this requires a massive amount of resource and research, and the people that do this work aren't some fly-by-night quacks, they're some of the best educated people on the planet and they don't come cheap. Add in to this all costs need to be covered during the life of a ten year patent and that's why drug companies charge the earth (some of these drugs are truly astounding in their MOA and cost a considerable amount to produce, even though relatively few people will actually benefit from them). Drug companies tend to work in specific therapeutic areas and many of these drugs are stepping stones on the way to finding new treatments and cures; oncology benefits greatly from the research of major pharma companies. If this sounds like a spirited defence of the faceless evil corporations keeping us all sick then it's not, but it is reality. Drug discovery and development demands pure scientific research and this is something governments will simply not invest in unless it has commercial value. Pure research is being slashed by governments whose ministers don't have the wit or motivation to understand that without it humankind cannot move forward scientifically in any meaningful way. Outside of universities how much publicly funded pure research is going on into drug development? Squat. The space programme? Run on a shoestring. Look at the debates on free healthcare in the US and UK. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that the extensive and expensive research (which requires a global infrastructure) is going to be paid for by the taxpayer? The majority of people vote for a capitalist system (and many people have duckfits if an alternative is suggested) and in this free market system the only way to develop drugs is if they are commercially viable. So assuming you're happy to live the life where freedom of choice means consumer freedom of choice then you've got nothing to whinge about - it's your system, so get with it. Of course, free market systems like capitalism aren't for handouts and helping the needy and that is why governments and drug companies show their arses with generic manufacturers of drugs in developing nations like India and Brazil. The system demands they protect their economic interests and so if someone is dying in a filthy favela because they can't get cheap antivirals that could save their lives then so be it. That's the system western capitalism promotes, we as consumers pay for in myriad ways and the system we vote for in elections. The system doesn't have a conscience, and if you do then vote it out when you can. Until you decide to regulate the free market to make it fairer for all regardless of their financial situation, colour, nationality or quirk of birth then look at the work the drug companies do and wonder. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Aug 09 - 03:58 PM Don said: "I am a firm believer in the Conservative principle of allowing citizens to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives, their finances, and their property." Don two things. First that is not the principle. The principle of conservatism is to conserve advantage: the concept "What I have I hold". It is the principle that allows the rich to continue to steal from the poor. Your alleged principle if pursued would lead to no national helath, no national insurance, no unemployment benefit, no other welfare benefits, no speed limits, no restrictions on ownership of deadly weapons, no care system, - I could continue fo rhours (and you may think I frequently do). Second - It is an (alleged) principle that could and does resound to the disadvantage of millions, who through no fault of their own (or incompetence) have screwed their lives up. Would you really endorse that, knowing who we know? |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Aug 09 - 04:28 PM What if you can't vote the system out, because the major political parties are all controlled by the same great financial interests? I have seen numerous angry attempts by an aroused public in both Canada and the USA to "vote the system out". I have not seen one of those attempts actually succeed. All I've seen is a change of actors on the stage...a shuffling of masked avengers...heros and villains...rather like replacing one pair of wrestlers at the WWF with another after the bell rings to end the last match. It's a "work" (wrestling term). It's a staged performance to mesmerize the public and make them think they have genuine representation. It's not a truly representative process at all, it's just a big PR show to divide and conquer at election time, bought and paid for by the people you will never get to cast a vote for or against. You don't even know who they are or where they live or what they are doing. That's how the $ySStem is designed. From the very top down. Like a pyramid. And it works every time. The public cannot identify the oppressor at the top, because the oppressor has no known face. All they can do is blame it all on Bush...or Reagan...or Clinton...or Obama. That's equivalent to blaming the entire corrupt wrestling game on Hulk Hogan or The Undertaker or Jake the Snake Roberts. But people are fooled by that kind of thing, because the face of a "bad guy" or the face of a "good guy" is something they can relate to on a visceral level. They can understand it. Bush was presented as a "good guy" to rescue the country in 2000. The controllers and the public were all finished with him by 2008. Obama was then presented as a "good guy" to rescue the country in 2008. Wait and see what happens to Obama in the next 4 to 8 years. Obama is not the man in control. No president is the man in control. They are figureheads. If one tries to actually take control (as John Kennedy tried to), then guess what happens to him? You either serve as a compliant figurehead or you are disposed of (one way or another)...and whoever you are, you're just temporary. But the $ySStem, like a corporation, is NOT temporary. It goes on and on, theoretically it is immortal just like a corporation. It can only die eventually by its own stupidity and madness or at the hand of a mightier external system, but not by your vote. Your vote cannot bring it down. The only American politicians I've seen who resolutely opposed what the $ySStem is doing in the last election were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Accordingly, they had no chance of being the guy selected to run for president by their respective parties. They were small enough fish that the $ySStem could laugh at them in its media, marginalize them, and not worry too much about them. If they'd been big enough fish to actually threaten the status quo...well, then more extreme methods would have been found to silence them. As it was, that was not necessary. The main candidates, groomed and chosen by the $ySStem, were the only ones that really counted. That was Hillary and Obama, and maybe Edwards. McCain was set up to take the fall, in my opinion, but he'd have made a fine $ySStem man anyway...only it was time to kick the new "bad guys" (Republicans) out and bring the new "good guys" (Democrats) in. Next time it may be exactly the other way around, but it won't change anything except who gets to wear which mask. Will Obama get 4 years? Or will he get 8? We'll have to wait and see how that goes. After him? There'll be another "face" chosen as a mask to put in front of the $ySStem's faceless power. The selection of Obama was brilliant, by the way. I've never seen a more effective selection of a presidential candidate in order to dramatically shift attitudes around the world toward the USA in a more positive direction...and God knows, it sure was time to do something about THAT! Bush's last 8 years of military folly had made the USA the most feared and detested country on Earth. What will Obama do with all that political capital? What will his Masters let him do? I wonder? |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:05 PM Is anyone going to seriously suggest that the extensive and expensive research (which requires a global infrastructure) is going to be paid for by the taxpayer? But the truth is, who else does pay for it, one way or another? An enormous part of the research and development carried out by drug companies is not aimed at developing new drugs which are more effective in ways that existing drugs are not, but rather at producing drugs that are saleable near-clones of existing drugs. |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Don Firth Date: 17 Aug 09 - 06:08 PM The level of cynicism is mind-boggling! Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Drug Companies:as Bad as Bankers? From: Acorn4 Date: 18 Aug 09 - 03:53 AM One of the reasons for posting this thread initially was that we have a son who is autistic and now 21. We obviously did everything we could along the way to help him although we realised fairly early on that a cure was unlikely. When he was 8 investigated diet and took him to one of the top experts on food intolerance. He did a number of tests, and among the things he found was that his system contained traces of mercury, but could not explain how this got there apart from possibly a tooth filling. Some years later it emerged that some innoculations given to children contained a preservative called Thiomersal which was derived from Mercury, a known poison. If you read "Alice in Wonderland", the behaviour of the Mad Hatter is very like someone with autism or Aspberger's. Hatters used to use mercury in their trade and the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism are, apparently, very similar. Apparently thiomersal is no longer used but was withdrawn but not before existing stocks were used up on children. We're often asked by mothers with babies for advice on innoculation, and say that we cannot really advise them one way or another, as we are not molecular biologists. On the other hand, by the same token, any politician who can stand up and say with any authority that any particular innoculation is aafe is, quite plainly, talking through their a**e! |