Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I'm reminded again why I'm a liberal
32 views
Skip to first unread message
JGibson
May 18, 2013, 9:10:21 AM5/18/13
to
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
WonkotheSane
May 18, 2013, 10:31:16 AM5/18/13
to
JGibson <james.m...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7-
9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
Doug
--
Government is the opiate of the Masses.
9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
Doug
--
Government is the opiate of the Masses.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 18, 2013, 10:37:41 AM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 9:10 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
I love false accusations of others in order to justify personal
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
beliefs.
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 18, 2013, 10:47:13 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:10:21 -0700 (PDT), JGibson
<james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
>If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go throug=
<james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
>h so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the =
>U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort=
> it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken gla=
>ss from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / ev=
>en violates law thanks to useless regulations.
Unpossible. Liberals reward failure.
Hugh
xyzzy
May 18, 2013, 12:47:46 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 10:31 am, WonkotheSane <dougNOSPAMsoren...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7-
other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
and the market will sort it out. This incident, (though calling a
multiyear ongoing drug purity fraud that permeates every product line
of an entire multinational corporation, an "incident" seems like a
gross understatement) definitely validates the latter outlook vs the
former.
How often have we heard from wingnuts that the drug approval process
is too onerous, and if a drug is approved somewhere else that outta be
good enough for us? Uh huh.
wrote:
> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7-
> 9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
>
> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
and the market will sort it out. This incident, (though calling a
multiyear ongoing drug purity fraud that permeates every product line
of an entire multinational corporation, an "incident" seems like a
gross understatement) definitely validates the latter outlook vs the
former.
How often have we heard from wingnuts that the drug approval process
is too onerous, and if a drug is approved somewhere else that outta be
good enough for us? Uh huh.
Jim Brown
May 18, 2013, 12:51:59 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 8:10 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
No FDA.
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
Gotcha.
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 18, 2013, 12:59:55 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:47:46 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
>other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
>It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations.
If you didn't make sense once in a while it would be much easier to
hate liberals than just regard them as worthless trash.
Hugh
wrote:
>I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
>other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
>It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations.
hate liberals than just regard them as worthless trash.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 18, 2013, 1:00:54 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 18, 9:10=A0am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>>
>> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go thro=
>ugh so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in th=
>e U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. =A0Instead, the market would =
>sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken=
> glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. =A0Ranbaxy only gets caugh=
Hugh
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 18, 9:10=A0am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>>
>ugh so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in th=
>e U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. =A0Instead, the market would =
>sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken=
> glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. =A0Ranbaxy only gets caugh=
>t / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
>
>I love false accusations of others in order to justify personal
>beliefs.
I say, it's Obieesque.
>
>I love false accusations of others in order to justify personal
>beliefs.
Hugh
JGibson
May 18, 2013, 1:27:52 PM5/18/13
to
the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry executives in charge of product approvals.
Jim Brown
May 18, 2013, 1:48:49 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 12:27 pm, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
> > On May 18, 8:10 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> > > If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
>
> > No FDA.
>
> > Gotcha.
>
> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00...
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
> > On May 18, 8:10 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> > > If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
>
> > No FDA.
>
> > Gotcha.
>
>
> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry executives in charge of product approvals.
Dood...thats basically what we have right now...did you see where the
> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry executives in charge of product approvals.
old FDA cheif went? To work for the a pharm co. These guys go back
and forth and are bought and sold like chattel.
WonkotheSane
May 18, 2013, 2:20:06 PM5/18/13
to
xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4e20fce3-e97c-4574...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On May 18, 10:31�am, WonkotheSane <dougNOSPAMsoren...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7- 9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipito
>> >r/
>>
>> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
>
> I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
> other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
> It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
> naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
> monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
> government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
> and the market will sort it out.
I don't think conservatives naturally trust corporations. Well, maybe a
little more than liberals do. It's that we distrust government more.
news:4e20fce3-e97c-4574...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On May 18, 10:31�am, WonkotheSane <dougNOSPAMsoren...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7- 9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipito
>> >r/
>>
>> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
>
> I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
> other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
> It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
> naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
> monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
> government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
> and the market will sort it out.
little more than liberals do. It's that we distrust government more.
Hoover
May 18, 2013, 2:25:08 PM5/18/13
to
I would NEVER admit that!
xyzzy
May 18, 2013, 2:28:21 PM5/18/13
to
michael anderson
May 18, 2013, 2:29:08 PM5/18/13
to
Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 18, 2013, 4:16:57 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of both w=
>ords: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless entity. Peo=
>ple don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda approved' for somethi=
should probably be a last resort.
Wasn't it a generic of Dyazide that the FDA approved 20 or so years
ago and the company had submitted Dyazide vice their compound?
Hugh
<miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of both w=
>ords: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless entity. Peo=
>ple don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda approved' for somethi=
>ng doesn't mean it's worth a damn.
>Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
The process needs a lotta help but guarding the henhouse with the fox
should probably be a last resort.
Wasn't it a generic of Dyazide that the FDA approved 20 or so years
ago and the company had submitted Dyazide vice their compound?
Hugh
Dennis J
May 18, 2013, 4:31:47 PM5/18/13
to
really rails against Crony Capitalism...
meanwhile Conservatives in Indiana RE-Elected a former Senator-Turned
Lobbyist back into the Senate...
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Dennis J
May 18, 2013, 4:32:45 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
CheeseHusker dos
May 18, 2013, 5:30:26 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 8:10 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
The flip side of this, are the thousands of deaths caused by
>
> If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
unreasonable approval delays. It's easy to laud the FDA for something
like this - bravo! How many have died tho waiting for various cancer
treatments to be approved/allowed? Like say with beta-blockers or
interleukin-2 - both of which had gained widespread approval in Europe
years prior to FDA approval.
The crux of the matter for the FDA, is that approval and subsequent
failure of a drug is more damaging than nonapproval and subsequent
death of regulatory victims. And that's more of less true for most
regulations - we rarely see the costs imposed.
The vast majority of conservatives are okay with regulations - after
all, the bedrock of a civil society is founded on common law, private
property, standards, etc. It's when regulations strangle and
contradict and impose unreasonable burdens with negative cost-benefit
analyses, that Iwethey get annoyed. Where that line is, I don't know
- but likely it's found on the 80/20 curve. It's when we strive for
100% efficacy of our regulations, that we run into issues of either
noncompliance or a lack of utility.
CheeseHusker dos
May 18, 2013, 5:34:04 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 1:20 pm, WonkotheSane <dougNOSPAMsoren...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Si
And I've thought about that a bit - 3 reasons - one - I can usually
pick and choose which evil corporation I interact with - but not
goverment (other than moving). Two - the power of the law can be
quite heavy handed and imposing - as anyone who's every received a
certified letter from a gov't agency can attest to. Third - one size
fits all solutions are typical of gov't interactions whereas the
private sector allows for far more tailoring.
And I've thought about that a bit - 3 reasons - one - I can usually
pick and choose which evil corporation I interact with - but not
goverment (other than moving). Two - the power of the law can be
quite heavy handed and imposing - as anyone who's every received a
certified letter from a gov't agency can attest to. Third - one size
fits all solutions are typical of gov't interactions whereas the
private sector allows for far more tailoring.
michael anderson
May 18, 2013, 6:33:04 PM5/18/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:32:45 PM UTC-5, Dennis J wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
>
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:27:52 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On May 18, 8:10�am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an FDA. �Instead, the market would sort it out after enough people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. �Ranbaxy only gets caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
>
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:27:52 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On May 18, 8:10�am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > No FDA.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Gotcha.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry executives in charge of product approvals.
>
> >
>
> >I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of both words: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless entity. People don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda approved' for something doesn't mean it's worth a damn. I had a pt just last week who I put on a drug that wasn't 'fda approved' for their diagnosis. They wanted me to put them instead on a drug that was fda approved. I said "maam, there is actually some evidence that the drug I'm going to try you on may help a little. There is no evidence that the fda approved drug you want me to put you on is indicated"
>
> >
>
> >Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
>
>
>
> and in doing so you broke the law...
huh? how so?
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > No FDA.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Gotcha.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry executives in charge of product approvals.
>
> >
>
> >I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of both words: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless entity. People don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda approved' for something doesn't mean it's worth a damn. I had a pt just last week who I put on a drug that wasn't 'fda approved' for their diagnosis. They wanted me to put them instead on a drug that was fda approved. I said "maam, there is actually some evidence that the drug I'm going to try you on may help a little. There is no evidence that the fda approved drug you want me to put you on is indicated"
>
> >
>
> >Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
>
>
>
> and in doing so you broke the law...
NapalmHeart
May 20, 2013, 9:55:45 AM5/20/13
to
"michael anderson" <miande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a115374-57e2-48cb...@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:32:45 PM UTC-5, Dennis J wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
>
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:27:52 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On May 18, 8:10�am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had
> >> > > to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs
> >> > > approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an
> >> > > FDA. �Instead, the market would sort it out after enough
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), michael anderson
>
> <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:27:52 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:51:59 PM UTC-4, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On May 18, 8:10�am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > If conservatives had their way, Ranbaxy wouldn't even have had
> >> > > to go through so many hoops in their fraud to get their drugs
> >> > > approved for sale in the U.S. because there wouldn't even be an
> >> > > people didn't get better / died / choked on broken glass from
> >> > > taking pharmaceuticals from Ranbaxy. �Ranbaxy only gets
> >> > > caught / even violates law thanks to useless regulations.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > No FDA.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Gotcha.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think
> >> tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry
> >> executives in charge of product approvals.
>
> >
>
> >I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of
> >both words: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless
> >entity. People don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda
> >approved' for something doesn't mean it's worth a damn. I had a pt
> >just last week who I put on a drug that wasn't 'fda approved' for
> >their diagnosis. They wanted me to put them instead on a drug that
> >was fda approved. I said "maam, there is actually some evidence that
> >the drug I'm going to try you on may help a little. There is no
> >evidence that the fda approved drug you want me to put you on is
> >indicated"
>
> >
>
> >Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
>
>
>
> and in doing so you broke the law...
huh? how so?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > No FDA.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Gotcha.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Gingrich-affdiated think
> >> tank, would replace the FDA with an agency designed to put industry
> >> executives in charge of product approvals.
>
> >
>
> >I would actually prefer that, because right now we have the worst of
> >both words: the usua bloat and inefficiency and cost with a useless
> >entity. People don't understand that just because a drug is 'fda
> >approved' for something doesn't mean it's worth a damn. I had a pt
> >just last week who I put on a drug that wasn't 'fda approved' for
> >their diagnosis. They wanted me to put them instead on a drug that
> >was fda approved. I said "maam, there is actually some evidence that
> >the drug I'm going to try you on may help a little. There is no
> >evidence that the fda approved drug you want me to put you on is
> >indicated"
>
> >
>
> >Im pretty sure in many cases the fda does more harm than good
>
>
>
> and in doing so you broke the law...
huh? how so?
He must not know that you can make a prescription you deem beneficail to
the patient that isn't "FDA approved".
NapalmHeart
May 20, 2013, 10:05:01 AM5/20/13
to
"WonkotheSane" <dougNOSPA...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C4884B8CFE3do...@78.46.70.116...
my 3rd term I agree with this. I distrust government now more than I
ever have.
Ken
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
May 20, 2013, 2:23:11 PM5/20/13
to
"xyzzy" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4e20fce3-e97c-4574...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 10:31 am, WonkotheSane <dougNOSPAMsoren...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7-
> 9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
and the market will sort it out. This incident, (though calling a
multiyear ongoing drug purity fraud that permeates every product line
of an entire multinational corporation, an "incident" seems like a
gross understatement) definitely validates the latter outlook vs the
former.
-----
wrote:
> JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7cc095b8-f97f-4f7e-abe7-
> 9e2ed9...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
>
> You do realize that Ranbaxy is in a socialist country, don't you?
I don't think in this case it's a matter of how good regulators in
other countries or this country are, in the face of outright frauds.
It's more a matter of basic philosophy on corporations. Liberals
naturally distrust them and as a result of that believe they should be
monitored and regulated. Conservatives naturally trust them and feel
government should get out of their way and let them do as they will,
and the market will sort it out. This incident, (though calling a
multiyear ongoing drug purity fraud that permeates every product line
of an entire multinational corporation, an "incident" seems like a
gross understatement) definitely validates the latter outlook vs the
former.
Easy to put words in our mouths, I suppose. This "conservative" wishes
responsible persons didn't get to get to hide behind corporations. Then
they would be motivated be regulated, regardless of who is doing it.
-----
How often have we heard from wingnuts that the drug approval process
is too onerous, and if a drug is approved somewhere else that outta be
good enough for us? Uh huh.
In a lot of cases, it is too onerous. But drug approval isn't all-or-nothing
but ongoing. Getting drugs to clinical trials is what is too onerous.
--Tedward
0 new messages