Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability?
    #19224907 - 12/03/13 11:18 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I'm no good at making this videeios things appear properly in posts, so this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=677_1354418535

Reputable reporting, no hokey sources. Suggests cure for cancer is known and virtually free, but can't make a $100 million test phase process due to no companies holding a patent on it, and so nobody wants to spend the money to have it certified for public availability.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedodgem
Learner
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/04/11
Posts: 2,683
Last seen: 7 months, 7 days
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19224924 - 12/03/13 11:24 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I have thought this for many a year, not where I got the idea for it was though. 

Shit could have been cured.  They can make upwards of a billion dollars a year off of breast cancer donations and other cancer donations for 'research', but can't make any money after telling the world about curing it... So which do you think they picked? 

Something to think about.





Sort of like the talk about Tesla and his free energy.  No one could make money off of free energy so why would you tell everyone about it when you can make millions off this inefficient way of outsourcing energy. 


--------------------
Walk where you like your steps


Edited by dodgem (12/03/13 11:30 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: dodgem]
    #19225133 - 12/04/13 01:42 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Well, the important thing is to not let others' malevolent choices get in the way of knowledge and discoveries such as these. The more people who are aware, the less it becomes a decision left to pharmaceutical companies. Everyone who's lost somebody important to them due to cancer will likely become indignant upon such knowledge, and there is an unfortunate sea of such.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19225176 - 12/04/13 02:33 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Apart from the question if this is the miracle cure, I agree that the funding of drug research needs to be restructured, albeit partially, to (1) allow the investigation of drugs that are promising medically but not economically and (2) reduce the cost profile of drug development and testing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: koraks]
    #19225434 - 12/04/13 06:12 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Do you have ideas or knowledge on how that can be done from this point?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19225461 - 12/04/13 06:26 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Your best bet, depending on where you live, is to exert influence on public policy. The main problem is that in Western countries, the paradigm of the free market dictates that drug research is performed by pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, with funding originating for the major part in the private sector (i.e. pharmaceutical companies). It seems that at this point, many countries are recognizing the problem with this, i.e. that interesting drugs from a public health perspective are not always the best investment for a pharmaceutical company. Governments should step up to the plate and direct funds directly towards institutes that are capable of developing new drugs that may not necessarily be profitable. At this point, in particular antibiotics are receiving attention that goes in this direction.

In order to speed up the slow and expensive process of drug testing, the challenges seem even greater, with technological innovation in the nanotech and biotech domains being promising for early trials - but as a society, we keep leaning heavily on animal trials and very strictly regulated human trials. I'm not sure if the risk/benefit analysis for major developments in life-threatening diseases always grants this very cautious approach, and indeed, in isolated cases, unapproved but promising drugs are indeed administered to patients outside a drug-testing setting. This is already possible and fortunately, in the case of drug-testing procedures where intermediate results already show that the benefits far outweigh the risks of side-effects, even a controlled trial will be aborted and the entire research population will be given access to treatment with the new drug for ethical reasons (you could keep administering placebos to the test population and watch how they deteriorate, but fortunately, we're not that stupid as a society :wink:).

So in part, the solution (or at least a partial one) seems to be on its way - as long as we keep dedicating some of our public resources to innovation and we don't insist on relying too much on a free market paradigm that has by now proven to be less effective than we perhaps once hoped.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: koraks]
    #19229957 - 12/05/13 03:41 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Dandelion Root Extract has also been shown to cause apoptosis of cancer or is that what they are talking about?:


Quote:



His team’s first phase of research showed that dandelion root extract forced a very aggressive and drug-resistant type of blood cancer cell, known as chronic monocytic myeloid leukemia, to essentially commit suicide.

Researchers then discovered that repeated treatment with low dose dandelion root extract was effective in killing most of the cancerous cells.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/cancer-killing-dandelion-tea-gets-157k-research-grant-1.1248382






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLungCheeseFungus
Stranger Everyday
Male

Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 75
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: teknix]
    #19230233 - 12/05/13 07:46 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I've seen a few documentaries on this topic. Very interesting. I think it goes beyond "Why would someone promote something they can't profit from?" to "Gee, we'll loose billions if the truth gets out." What's a few million bucks to suppressing these truths, other than job security to these death and suffering loving cysts of society? I'll help pay for their chemo, and let them suffer the product of their lies, the yearning of death. And before I forget, women, don't ever get a mammogram. I like titties and ionizing radiation will never help them, any real studies show that it causes cancer. Gee, you don't have titty cancer yet? Lets beam you with this crazy shit and make sure!

Rant off.

If anyone is interested in this, or for whatever reason wants to become totally enraged and disgusted at the world today, I recommend searching for the following torrents:

Burzynski
Burzynski 2
The Story Of Vitamin B17
Gerson Cancer Cure

And I saw a boring documentary on the PH of the human body, and how it is a total cock block to cancer. Forget exactly what it was called. Some damn good movies ^. Check them out. Peace.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19231197 - 12/05/13 01:15 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Yes. Nobody wants to use $100 million that's non-recouperable of their own funds, particularly for something they don't own, particularly for something that they can't profit on after testing is complete, particularly when it will replace procedures and medications which those people who are those in the industry who finance such things are currently making heavy profits from.

There's another miracle cure I'm already aware of that hasn't been even considered for application for the same reason: cocaine - this might call for explanation and examples, but there are many specific medications whose roles cocaine would replace by being much more-effective, safer, and cheaper. That's probably why it has kept its illegal status despite being non-addictive (not counting lack of self control as an addiction that falls on a substance), giving no withdrawl, being dirt cheap to produce (Around $0.25 if you're a licensed lab importing bulk leaf), and much safer in dose sizes compared to most any other medication - and with no side-effects within moderate use - and while being concluded, by the World Health Organization, to not be in any way mentally or physically harmful in small to medium doses in a healthy person, and to additionally in fact be beneficial in small doses (though I think that can very easily apply to a dose of any size that doesn't kill you).



As sometimes happens on the subject, I'm going into a tangent now, still innocently unawares of how long this one will be. But: Cocaine has been known as the party and celebrity drug, but that's due to what crowd it settled with through socio-economic and image factors. In reality, cocaine is the self-perfection drug. It surges dopamine through you in strength relative to your dose, and dopamine is in play to create every possible good sensation known to human - love, confidence, empathy, plus tons... and whether directly from dopamine, in-part due to dopamine while in-part due to oxygen transfer rate, memory, scope of though, ability to deal with complexity, ability to control thoughts, ability to make subject association with eclectic subjects that shed light onto something, quality of thought, precision of movement, accuracy of evaluations and scope of evaluations, plus tons... all see massive benefit with a good dose. Thing is, you have to not be distracted with a party to realize all of this, and the benefits to be reaped I would say are greater than possibly any other drug, and with near-complete dependability. The overwhelming thoughts I've experienced on heavy doses of psychedelics don't hold a match to what cocaine effortlessly achieves - once you take control. It's like knowing all possible routes you could take, and being in complete control of all branching paths each step along, and the results are enigmatic like with psychedelics, but they're useful. I think that it's easy to realize limitless mega bucks scoring concepts with understanding while meditating on a strong dose of cocaine - as long as it was made sure that any downward running stressed and though patterns were meditated into silence before dosing.

I think that in the medium-distanced future, most all will use stimulants regularly to increase their capacities, refine themselves, and change the entire world for the better at a pace easily 100x the current - at no cost to health in the moderate user. This might sound fanciful or contrary to associations with the drug, but it's literal (I'm already putting out personal-life, a bulletproof new solution relating to specific field of medical science (not with this, lol), bible improving (it is possible to out-date the new testament with the virtually same new testament, resulting in greatly increased ease and depth of understanding), organizing an app that sits in an application near-proximity sphere of the $30 million selling Summly (but doesn't something entirely different and has no existing competition and massive application (including newly-realized to be an essential basic tool for every single...[won't say] in more than one large continent), suggesting that it should easily sell for millions) new app, possible career-establishing, and unique personal rights (as in just for me) establishing by confirmation of just... I'm already putting all this stuff out, just naturally stemming from stuff I'd most likely never think, realize, put together, know how to deal with, or act on, sober, much less on any other substance - the amount of money). Also, it significantly boosts learning skills, and grants you to do the documentation for all your projects effortlessly at a much stronger proficiency than normal, including more powerful and detailed observations than normal. And then there are the non-immediately-monetizable ideas, those are many as well.

How much money that any of those full-scope-known and planned projects will net, no clue (similar to the answer to whether they will be done), but I feel it all comes down to whether I enact them. The bible one is easily millions-netting, as is the app (unless someone it was shared with for practical reasons, and who didn't dis acknowledge it's amazing usefulness and scope) has no scruples and tries to do it first (and they easily can) - these are simply time and laziness issues (not really laziness, but I'm substituting the debilitating factor with laziness), but their values are facts. The medical cure where none currently exists offers no chance of money in cure sales or patenting, so if there's money to be made on verified useful cures on presentation alone then I might get something, otherwise, no monetary benefit but definite benefits of other sorts... and whatever else I mentioned, lots of money I'm sure, if enacted.

Semi-ramble adjourned, but hopefully opening some consideration to the reality that using stimulants as party or casual effort never alludes that the actual potential, and I'd say driven purpose, for such is limitless beyond that casual use - the limiting factor is instead the speed which a physical body lets things be done at, while the thoughts and knowing are all ready to be tapped effortlessly after the initial choice that takes just a modicum of self-direction to meditate before/during, create an assistive environment, maybe put on beneficial music... the party drug and the self-perfection/self-realization drug two entirely distinct substances with little that's familiar in experience, enjoyment, satisfaction, results, and perception-shifting. Never again will I choose to use cocaine to chill or party if the other use is available. From now on it is definitively the self-perfection/endless--rigorous-masturbation drug.

Post-text Disclaimer: This was not written on cocaine. The trail end of something for sure, though (my views on things future prevalent normal stimulant use and the string of typically never-in-a-lifetime, and highly lucrative product plans which have come at least significantly through dopamine surge treatment [some maybe entirely], though).

Fuck I'm derailing my own thread. Asshole.


Edited by something cool (12/05/13 01:22 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr.alkaline
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/15/12
Posts: 684
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool] * 1
    #19234689 - 12/06/13 12:33 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

this isn't really anything other than sensationalism. shitty reporting that misleads people and hurts the public view of drug development.

They probably treated mice that had undergone a xenograft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation

treatments with drugs that shrink tumors in this grafts are not a breakthrough discovery. It may indicate a good platform, but there are many other drugs that do this. I think calling it a cancer cure might have been a bit of a stretch.

Don't believe me, here you go:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=xenograft+small+molecule&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48

I dont blame pharma companies for not taking on a drug that wont make them money.  If a company wont take it on who will? The government? It costs a metric ass ton to develop a drug and money doesn't fall from the sky. 


Edited by dr.alkaline (12/06/13 12:55 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: LungCheeseFungus]
    #19234965 - 12/06/13 02:28 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

LungCheeseFungus said:
And before I forget, women, don't ever get a mammogram. I like titties and ionizing radiation will never help them, any real studies show that it causes cancer. Gee, you don't have titty cancer yet? Lets beam you with this crazy shit and make sure!




Ok that was a legitimately retarded remark right there. You must have spent too much time with your head in the ionizing radiation or sometimg :facepalm:
In case you do want to actually use your brain when considering this matter, here's a comparison of radiation doses associated with a few random things:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/DoseComparisonsForIonisingRadiation/
A mammogram involves a 1 - 2 mSv dose, with the total exposure for a woman receiving mammograms over a period of 50 years amounting to 400mSv. The average dose anyone will receive in the USA (for the major part from natural sources and food) is 310Sv (=310,000mSv). The fact that this cumulative dose is spread out over a period of 50 years and is 0.13% of the average dose an American would receive anyway suggests that the incidence of cancer as a result of mammograms is very, very low; far less than a tenth of a percent. The average lifetime risk of a woman developing breast cancer is 12.3% (source). The odds of dying from it rise sharply with the time it goes undetected. Early detection saves lives and one of the reasons for the relatively high survival rate in this day and age in the Western world (ca. 85%) is diagnosis.

In my view, it's pretty retarded to not take a <<0.1% risk associated with imaging to manage a >10% risk of contracting a lethal disease. Hence my earlier, quite undiplomatic but heartfelt remark. Think again, Carl.


Edited by koraks (12/06/13 02:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19234978 - 12/06/13 02:33 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Treating cancer is a multi billion dollar industry why would they want to cure it?
Western medicine profits mostly off of treating symptoms of disease, not curing disease. That would cut profits significantly.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Shroomism]
    #19235016 - 12/06/13 03:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Yes, but assuming that the economic argument actively prevents other treatments of cancer to be found is a stupid idea. It will make it more difficult to fund research into potentially cheap cures, but research is being conducted and the magical cure just isn't in there yet. Unfortunately. It's much too easy to just assume that 'big pharma' is evil and actively blocks research. It isn't nearly as simple, but maintaining such an argument doesn't get the debate an inch further.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: Shroomism] * 1
    #19235816 - 12/06/13 10:33 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Shroomism said:
Treating cancer is a multi billion dollar industry why would they want to cure it?
Western medicine profits mostly off of treating symptoms of disease, not curing disease. That would cut profits significantly.




Mindless and unsubstantiated hippie propaganda.  Curing cancer would be immensely profitable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236058 - 12/06/13 11:22 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

If the cure costed only pennies per dose, didn't require any equipment or treatment center visits, didn't require special care, and could be attained by anyone? The costs of treatment come the specific methods of treatment and the equipment and meds used within. If long-term treatment equipment and costly meds are replaced with a virtually-free and non-pantented cure, how could that provide opportunity for even small profit, let alone immense profit? Where do you see the profit coming in to play?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19236355 - 12/06/13 12:33 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

All the profit health insurance companies would make if they dont have to spend money on people staying sick.  It would result in millions, if not billions in lower costs (ie higher profits).  Its a ridiculous conspiracy theory to think that "Western medicine" (which is in itself a ridiculous misnomer) has a conspiracy to treat rather than cure a disease.  "Western medicine" has cured, does cure and will cure countless diseases.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236546 - 12/06/13 01:20 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Ok, those are insurance profits, not pharmaceutical profits. Curing cancer would take away Pharma's profits, therefore there's no incentive to them doing so. Pharma doesn't give a shit about insurance companies' profits, they give a shit about Pharma's profits. They aren't going to erase their billion dollar industry so that people who work in insurance will have nicer Christmas bonuses, they want those bonuses for themselves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,373
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19236568 - 12/06/13 01:25 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

First off, they could probably patent and profit off this by a simple reformulation.  It's done all the time.  Companies release new "extended release" versions of drugs, or patches, nasal sprays, etc.

Second, even if they couldn't get exclusivity, millions could be made off simple marketing.  This is how generic drugs work.  Lots of conmpanies make the same drug, and they still make money doing it.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly:  Why would someone give up millions of dollars in a cure, just so someone else can stay rich?  That is utterly, and entirely stupid.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: something cool]
    #19236804 - 12/06/13 02:16 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

something cool said:
Ok, those are insurance profits, not pharmaceutical profits. Curing cancer would take away Pharma's profits, therefore there's no incentive to them doing so. Pharma doesn't give a shit about insurance companies' profits, they give a shit about Pharma's profits. They aren't going to erase their billion dollar industry so that people who work in insurance will have nicer Christmas bonuses, they want those bonuses for themselves.




Who cares about the "big pharma" boogie man?  You think that adderall and oxycontin manufacturers dont have a financial incentive to cure cancer?  So what.  Neither does Amazon or Pizza Hut.  I dont think you understand how the research works.  There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of tenured researchers and practicing doctors looking for cures to all sorts of cancers.  Health care plans and insurance, either private or by the state, stand to make a lot of money if one is found.  The economy of your country and the world will improve when the tax paying workforce is healthy and working rather than sick and consuming extra treatment.  Cures to cancers are being researched more in "Western Medicine" than any crackpot healers you go too and there is nothing that manufactures of current treatments can do to stop them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesomething cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Cancer cured, but no big pharma profit to be made = no store availability? [Re: DieCommie]
    #19237225 - 12/06/13 04:07 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I don't believe in a Pharma monster that seeks to hurt people for the sake of hurting people, but I've been strongly made aware that many company execs either pick future execs because they are already of similar mindset in displaying sociopathic tendencies to trample over any number of people and not blink, or they pick suitably manipulable future execs that can be groomed to become of their shared mindset. But, as collective salaries start getting significantly large among office groups, there's little grooming needed because the value of protecting your profit even if it means stamping out somebody else's seems to become 2nd nature by default. It probably would sound pretty absurd to you to hear somebody bitching because they only make so much above $250k and so they prefer to make payments using their mega-millionaire gf's credit card that was given to them. Never mind that the company paid for everything prior to that anyway.

Big Pharma is a lot of people with a lot of them being grunt labourers who have no focus beyond making bills. They don't make the decisions, and normally somebody would be getting in big trouble if labourers were even privy to them. The decisions that all those labourers end up carrying out stem from a much smaller collection of people, and I have to say that it's fact that in that smaller collection of people there are people who think they're poor because they aren't making above $1 million a year, or worse, not above $2 million+ a year. Griping because they deserve more than the $300k+ a year they're receiving along with their globe-trotting benefits and limitless access to company credit lines. Companies DO invest massive amounts of millions of dollars to ensure that something which would be very beneficial to many average-earning people does not come into being because it would hurt the company's much larger collections of massive millions of dollars.  This is the kind of shit that was part of my dad's routine for probably decades before he retired. You are clueless if you think that you're saying something smart or are clever to dismiss what is the de facto reality of daily work all over, for many people, by taunting "big pharma boogie man".

Pharma don't have incentives to cure cancer. And? What's significant is that they have massive incentive to see that somebody else doesn't cure it, and they're in the position to make what they want to happen, happen. And wherever their millions and billions are threatened, they invest mounds of millions of dollars to see that their much bigger mounds of incoming millions/billions of dollars are assured to be safe. And your "boogey man" comment, I have to say is a childish perspective and suggests that you think this vile behaviour would have to be some advanced black-ops conspiracy. Being exposed to it, it's a stupidly plain text from one person who was advised from who-the-hell-ever who then splinters their list of tasks needed doing for a certain cause and disperses it among low-level workers and mid-level workers in other departments who then disperse them among further anonymous low-level workers who could believe they were bringing a nuns laundry to get washed for Sunday church for all they know, rather than indirectly contributing to making sure that the ball-playing legislation-tossing senator will win his campaign by hook or by crook. Kind of a literal choice of example for that one.

Nobody down the line is making a one grand evil choice of action to cause some people to die and many to be negatively afflicted. That choice is known to be a consequence by some (typically the ones genuinely don't care, it's survival of the fittest / your only responsible to yourself and family / it's dog-eat-dog / grow a backbone... ), possibly suspected by others but not perceived to be something that's in their hands, with no knowledge one way or the other among further others... but that reality is dealt with indirectly and the handling of it is broken down and spread among many when useful, so that no one thinks they're responsible, if they're even aware.  Many corporations that aren't 1/1000th the scale of B-P are regularly a lot nastier than a ridiculous "boogey man" dismissal surely has ever even considered.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/anemia/anemia-overuse-01828.html#.UqJEq8RDudw

Is it just a counter-culture decision to assume that the illustration of nasty and selfish things being done by those with all the means, who want to defend their current and future means, must be reverse of the truth? Not all industry's share the same exec culture, but there is no shortage of the nasty - and it doesn't look like movie villains or have nefarious music playing. The people involved are having fun, not thinking about what they can't do anything about ("without failing their job" should possibly be added to the end of that). The people either literally don't care, can sense kind of what negative practices could be being referred to but don't experience responses of understanding to them because they're genuinely sociopaths (and sociopaths can make ideal execs, depending on company philosophy), or are decent enough and just willfully ignoring shit. But all those people are under pressure to be a good worker and provide for themselves and their families. Is nasty, evil shit happening? Yeah. Do the people responsible appear as movie villains? Some are assholes, but most appear normal. Are most of the people involved thinking about it? Hardly any. They're thinking about needing to provide for themselves and their families... and that limitless company credit line and that, and that.

You don't have a possibility to taunt me into thinking Pharma is nice guys with some useless "boogeyman" ridicule because I've had to see that such stuff does happen, as it's being explained and spread along, and you're only telling me that you've always solidly been a middle class/upper middle class/ below middle class lifer with no exposure to what are naturally exclusive plans and only experienced by types to whom it's just normal routine anyway and nothing of note (or would have me believe), and who kept quiet not out of fear or guilt, but out of a natural sense of responsibility to serve their company, respect for their co-workers, and a goal to improve the company's image (which brings great personal benefits) rather not harm it (which might likely coincide with their termination anyways, so if any added incentive was needed, there it simply is). Pointless argument. Shit happens, it happens daily from companies and corporations of all sizes, and certainly happens with more muscle behind it when it relates to B-P. No boogymen, just people.


Edited by something cool (12/06/13 04:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Go to the store and name your price! with re-code.com
( 1 2 all )
Lana 4,333 39 06/03/03 10:22 AM
by Raadt
* Electronic nose 'sniffs out cancer' TackleBerry 928 2 05/08/03 06:01 AM
by TackleBerry
* Is the HIV virus a hoax?
( 1 2 3 all )
Baby_Hitler 8,895 42 05/08/03 04:38 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* I need a way to hide folders Chemical_Smile 2,581 19 08/16/02 04:53 PM
by tps
* Wormwood as an anti-cancer agent.... Randolph_Carter 563 1 09/01/04 02:21 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* lava lamp cure(wax lamp) butterflydawn 1,237 7 08/10/04 01:54 AM
by funkymonk
* This Week in Tech - Episode 6 available now Fungi_x 1,038 10 05/27/05 08:55 AM
by debianlinux
* best music store ever allofmp3.com AhronZombi 1,156 9 05/13/04 12:08 AM
by AhronZombi

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
3,827 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.