FDA hides Bayer selling AIDS!!!

It may sound stupid but dedicate an hour a day to research your questions. Answers are out there, hard part is when you seeing the truth and everyone else angle on it. Shit can be overwhelming.

But you went and took the red pill so no going back

I see the truth, we've been fucked down for years by not only big buisness but our own government. The Europeans brought their officials to justice, Americans need to do the same.

I didn't take any pill, I've been free from the start.

aha! I thought I smelled dead fish. These two characters, Papintonio and Scarborough are both from my town and are nuts. So I would say it was wise to have it double checked.

1

I can't fathom that either.

Start every batch with HIV infected blood?

Unless, somehow, the process that makes the drug creates HIV in every batch, seems like you could leave the HIV source out of the next batch.

Well, I think its probably because in order to create an anti-viral, you use the virus but remove the deadly part (somehow), then let the rest of the virus build an immunity in the host's body. Looks like Bayer just didnt bother to remove the deadly part.

Well said. Kudos

agreed, well said

No, of course we cannot say this would never happen, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend we can prevent all bad things from happening. What we need to do is set up a system that deals with unethical actions justly. In a free market without government monopolies on law enforcement and the courts these people would be prosecuted. Also because every person would have to rely primarily on himself for his own well being, we would be more conscious, active and responsible and such acts would not be tolerated by consumers.

Not to mention allowing Patents on LIFE so that any time GMO pollen blows and infects a non-licensed GMO crop the corporation gets to sue and prevail against the Organic farmer's crops who was infected by the GMO stuf

LOL you think stop lights wouldn't be necessary under a free market system? As if the private road systems in LA are somehow non-existent... LOOK AT FACTS!

Governments start wars, not freedom! The neocons are NOT conservative, they are statists just like the modern liberals. Bush is one of the biggest spenders to ever hit the scene and his increased regulations have hurt our country more than any other president to take office.....except for Obama coming up.....you have NO idea how economic freedom and civil liberties work!

Yes you are right "The free market" is not free at all and is the justification for much suffering in the world. Indeed what is called "free market capitalism" in common discourse is in many ways the exact opposite of what we want. Corporatism, neo-mercantilism interventionism and imperialism are better terms.

Elevator, free market capitalism has NOTHING to do with special interests, corporatism, or socialism......mercantilism is the source of socialism and central planning....how can a system that refrains companies from abusing laws (free market) be considered mercantilism, corporatism, or any of the other things you have named? You are wrong! Free markets are NOT corporatism....that is what socialism turns into! Corporatism originates from socialism/fascism or any other type of central planning! You need to get your definitions straight!

Mike I said what is called Free market in common discourse ie free market George bush and other statists talk about.

shanklinmike

I have just read a book on free market capitalism called "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
you might find it interesting.

Oh... so now you've finally justified suicide bombing, not for a social cause, but for your own selfish and petty reasons.

I guess that I'll just have to remind you to keep your mouth shut for good, whenever issues regarding the middle east are being discussed.

wow... this is OFFICIALLY the dumbest comment ive ever read... way to be a total whale sperm fill butt hole.

How did the middle east get into this?

It's ok for you but not for others, ha ha.

Wow...that's over my head or ...something

Don't worry Petarro, the rest of us got the joke. Some people just have beat people up with almost every entry. I think he was expressing his outrage and it was a "hypothetical" and "rhetorical" statement. I don't think he means he would LITERALLY go out, strap on a bomb and travel to Bayer Headquarters. Maybe just get a lawyer?

btw, just for the record...no one is discussing Middle East. Just Bayer.

Barb,3

E.S.A.D.

More regulation is just what they want look at past and current "regulation" and you see that the companies always benefit from their relation to the state. The FDA is itself a regulator. More regulation is more of this. Power breeds corruption. Why should we give some more power over all? This should teach us to do the opposite.

How would a business, however large or small, that didn't benefit people exist without government support? It wouldn't. That is the free market.

Governments will always be controlled by special interest, all your saying is that you want it to be yours. Why not get rid of the whole damn system?

Well Said Elevator in your response to neocongo I could not have put it better.

One only has to look at the tobacco industry to see that corporations will lie, cheat, beg, borrow and steal to ensure their profits. When I read things like this it sickens me but I am never surprised.

The individuals responsible for this should be arrested and charged with murder, but they never will be because they are the untouchable corporate elite. Benard Madoff is only the most recent example of our tiered system of justice that allows the rich to walk around free while a petty criminal would be sitting in a jail cell.

Neocongo, even Upton Sinclair admitted near his death that he meat packing regulations he setup went to the benefit of big business...

Big government and big business are partners, not polar opposites in a duel to compete. What is crazy is thinking that things like the SEC, FDA, and the other alphabet soups are actually long-run beneficial when they are really one of the biggest oligopolizers this world has seen. Only economic freedom positively correlates with civil liberties throughout the world. Wherever countries reduce slavery government and enable liberty, their people live much better! The index of economic freedom scale does not lie and the unitary theory of freedom persists in nature, not a segment of a demographic for short-run gains.

I wholeheartedly agree Mark. If there anything this countries suffers from its lack of justice and perversion of the law.

@shanklinmike, you cut&pasted that in your reply to my 'propaganda' post yesterday. I'll admit that my propaganda claim was ill-suited to yesterday's conversation... however, i still don't understand what this has to do with your claim.

So what that Upton S. made a mistake with the particular regulation he encouraged. That doesn't detract from the issue @ hand: if we remove all regulation and allow for anarcho-capitalism, then there's no way for the People to hold business accountable.

The fact that there's corruption @ the FDA is not surprising, there's corruption in any coercive organization... business, government, charity, religion, etc. You keep asking for facts from others, but I pose the question to you: What facts do you have that show that removing the peoples ability to regulate, by eliminating governments ability to regulate, will work to prevent corruption?

Certainly a government without parts can't have corruption, because there's nowhere for it to exist... but then how do the People do anything at all to fight from a wage earners position against a business interest so much larger than the individual?

It seems to me that the only thing the People can do is to work with a government Of, By and For them... or at least to elect those who will work to make government that way... rather than electing those officials who implant their corporate cronies in regulatory positions, with the sole intent to reduce regulation.

Perhaps I'm missing something here... could you elucidate me to the evidence of tiny government helping the people and not the business?

---
edit: to correct a misspelled name

BTW, this was a hemophiliac drug NOT aspirin. Just developed by Bayer. It is called "factor 8" and given to people who have a clotting disorder. In the 80s little was known about transmission of Aids through blood donations and a lot of mistakes were made. As far as a cover up, I would not be surprised once they found out what had been done. But they must have known if it was banned here?

To daveguy:

"So what that Upton S. made a mistake with the particular regulation he encouraged. That doesn't detract from the issue @ hand: if we remove all regulation and allow for anarcho-capitalism, then there's no way for the People to hold business accountable."

First off, I just want to say that "The Jungle" is socialist trash. Upton Sinclair was a diehard socialist who clearly had an agenda and the things in that book are at best gross misrepresentations and at worst, flat out falsehoods.

That out of the way, anarchism is the ONLY way for "the People" to hold business accountable. Upton Sinclair ironically showed just how effective the free market is at dealing with problems, and just how inept the government is at it. Within a few weeks of the book's release, meat sales dropped by 50%. This is how the free market works.

The only way a business can thrive in a free market is if it satisfies it's customers. If a business is crappy, and releases a crappy product, or treats its workers poorly(common instances of "corruption," and often when people feel government needs to step in), that business FAILS because no one wants its crappy product when they can get a much better one at the same price, and no one wants to work in poor conditions when they can work for a company that offers better pay and better conditions. This is why meat sales dropped so dramatically. Not because the government was there to save the day, but because people voted with their dollar. Then, the government decides to step in(mostly because the meat companies were lobbying for it.

Contrary to popular belief, big business LOVES regulation. I'll expound on this later). Government passes the Meat Inspection Act and sets up the FDA, and this calms the public. Meat sales go back up(because people have some idiotic faith in government, something that is never present in the market, and is a vital tool for...stopping corruption). So the government ended up helping big business out. Surprising.

"The fact that there's corruption @ the FDA is not surprising, there's corruption in any coercive organization... business, government, charity, religion, etc. You keep asking for facts from others, but I pose the question to you: What facts do you have that show that removing the peoples ability to regulate, by eliminating governments ability to regulate, will work to prevent corruption?"

Woah. Hold on now. We're not removing the people's ability to regulate. In fact, we're empowering the people's ability to regulate. There's SO many problems with government regulation.

1). The lack of accountability. This ties into the undeserving confidence that people have in government. If the FDA doesn't do its job and some bad food gets out...what happens? Do people stop paying the FDA? Does the FDA go out of business? Does a competitor step in and do the FDA's job better? No. The exact opposite happens, in fact. People simply call for MORE FDA, they call for MORE taxes. They call for MORE regulation. If the FDA was a private organization, who had to EARN it's money, instead of extort it from its "customers" by force, you can be damn sure they'd do the best job possible, because their pay check depends on it. Perfect example: Underwriters Laboratories(here's your proof of how "the People" deals with corruption in the absence of government). I bet you've never even heard of Underwriters Laboratories, but I'm 100% sure that if you went into your kitchen right now, looked on the bottom of your toaster, you'd find the "UL" Logo there. That's because UL is a private regulation company. The only thing it does is regulate products. Their business relies on their reputation, which means that they bust their asses to make sure that they only put their "stamp of approval" on quality products, because if someone gets hurt or even dies from a product that has their stamp on it, they feel it in the place that hurts the most, their wallet. UL does such a good job at regulating, manufacturers won't even release their product unless it gets approved by them, because no store will carry their product without UL's approval(remember, ALL of their reputations are on the line, and there will be consequences for releasing a crappy, or even dangerous product). The only reason that UL exists, of course, is because the government has instituted a coercive monopoly like it has in other sectors of the economy.

2). Unintended consequences. Regulation causes distortion in the market and doesn't allow it to function properly. You wanna see how bad the consequences of government intervention can be, just look at our economic crises right now. ALL of it caused by the government.

3). Government is SO susceptible to corruption(just as you pointed out). Like I said above, regulation is LOVED by big business, because it helps them tremendously. All the regulation makes it WAY harder for "the little guy" to compete with big business. Big business has the money to hire a team of lawyers and engineers to make sure that they meet all of the regulations, upstarts don't. Funny, I thought American's loved "the little guy." Furthermore, who do you think has more power to push through the legislation/regulation that they want, you, the individual, or big business, who has millions to throw around for lobbiers. One Congressmen said their constituents were about 50:1 in terms of "no:yes" for the financial bailout. Another said that his constituents were 50/50 between "no" and "hell no." But the bailout passed anyways. Do you think that has anything to do with the piles of money that the company's had to "persuade" the congressmen that the bailout was in their best interest?

This video was added over two year ago. November 2, 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

Why didn't I know about this story sooner I would stopped buying Bayer a really long time ago.

You say that like it affects the credibility of the video somehow. What does it matter when the video was released?