BRAVO: Inamed named one of 10 WORST Corporations of 2003

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Ilena, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html

    EXCERPT:

    Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing that
    led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago. In light of what remains unknown
    and what is known about the implants' effects -- including painful breast hardening which can lead
    to deformity, and very high rupture rates -- the FDA in January 2004 denied Inamed's application for
    marketing approval.

    A Boom Year for Corporate Crime The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003 By RUSSELL MOKHIBER and
    ROBERT WEISSMAN

    2003 was not a year of garden variety corporate wrongdoing. No, the sheer variety, reach and
    intricacy of corporate schemes, scandal and crimes was spellbinding. Not an easy year to pick the 10
    worst companies, for sure.

    But Multinational Monitor magazine cannot be deterred by such complications. And so, here follows,
    in alphabetical order, our list for Multinational Monitor of the 10 worst corporations of 2003.

    Bayer: 2003 may be remembered as the year of the headache at Bayer. In May, the company agreed to
    plead guilty to a criminal count and pay more than $250 million to resolve allegations that it
    denied Medicaid discounts to which it was entitled. The company was beleaguered with litigation
    related to its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. Bayer pulled the drug - which has been linked to a
    sometimes fatal muscle disorder -- from the market, but is facing thousands of suits from patients
    who allege they were harmed by the drug. In June, the New York Times reported on internal company
    memos which appear to show that the company continued to promote the drug even as its own analysis
    had revealed the dangers of the product. Bayer denies the allegations.

    Boeing: In one of the grandest schemes of corporate welfare in recent memory, Boeing engineered a
    deal whereby the Pentagon would lease tanker planes -- 767s that refuel fighter planes in the air --
    from Boeing. The pricetag of $27.6 billion was billions more than the cost of simply buying the
    planes. The deal may unravel, though, because the company in November fired for wrongdoing both the
    employee that negotiated the contract for Boeing (the company's chief financial officer), and the
    employee that negotiated the contract for the government. How could Boeing fire a Pentagon employee?
    Simple. She was no longer a Pentagon employee. Boeing had hired her shortly after the company
    clinched the deal.

    Brighthouse: A new-agey advertising/consulting/ strategic advice company, Brighthouse's claim to
    infamy is its Neurostrategies Institute, which undertakes research to see how the brain responds to
    advertising campaigns. In a cutting-edge effort to extend and sharpen the commercial reach in ways
    never previously before possible, the institute is using MRIs to monitor activity in people's brains
    triggered by advertisements.

    Clear Channel: The radio behemoth Clear Channel specializes in consuming or squashing locally owned
    radio stations, imposing a homogenized music play list on once interesting stations, and offering
    cultural support for U.S. imperial adventures. It has also compiled a record of "repeated law-
    breaking," according to our colleage Jim Donahue, violating the law -- including prohibitions on
    deceptive advertising and on broadcasting conversations without obtaining permission of the second
    party to the conversation -- on 36 separate occasions over the previous three years.

    Diebold: A North Canton, Ohio-based company that is one of the largest U.S. voting machine
    manufacturers, and an aggressive peddler of its electronic voting machines, Diebold has managed to
    demonstrate that it fails any reasonable test of qualifications for involvement with the voting
    process. Its CEO has worked as a major fundraiser for President George Bush. Computer experts
    revealed serious flaws in its voting technology, and activists showed how careless it was with
    confidential information. And it threatened lawsuits against activists who published on the Internet
    documents from the company showing its failures.

    Halliburton: Now the owner of the company which initially drafted plans for privatization of U.S.
    military functions -- plans drafted during the Bush I administration when current Vice President and
    former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense -- Halliburton is pulling in billions in
    revenues for contract work -- providing logistical support ranging from oil to food -- in Iraq. Tens
    of millions, at least, appear to be overcharges. Some analysts say the charges for oil provision
    amount to "highway robbery."

    HealthSouth: Fifteen of its top executives have pled guilty in connection with a multi-billion
    dollar scheme to defraud investors, the public and the U.S. government about the company's financial
    condition. The founder and CEO of the company that runs a network of outpatient surgery, diagnostic
    imagery and rehabilitative healthcare centers, Richard Scrushy, is fighting the charges. But thanks
    to the slick maneuvering of attorney Bob Bennett, it appears the company itself will get off scot
    free -- no indictments, no pleas, no fines, no probation.

    Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing that
    led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago. In light of what remains unknown
    and what is known about the implants' effects -- including painful breast hardening which can lead
    to deformity, and very high rupture rates -- the FDA in January 2004 denied Inamed's application for
    marketing approval.

    Merrill Lynch: This company keeps messing up. Fresh off of a $100 million fine levied because
    analysts were recommending stocks that they trashed in private e-mails, the company saw three former
    execs indicted for shady dealings with Enron. The company itself managed to escape with something
    less than a slap on the wrist -- no prosecution in exchange for "oversight."

    Safeway: One of the largest U.S. grocery chains, Safeway is leading the charge to demand givebacks
    from striking and locked out grocery workers in Southern California. Along with Albertsons and
    Ralphs (Kroger's), Safeway's Vons and Pavilion stores are asking employees to start paying for a
    major chunk of their health insurance. Under the company's proposals, workers and their families
    will lose $4,000 to $6,000 a year in health insurance benefits.

    Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman
    is editor of the Washington,
    D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and co-director of Essential Action, a corporate accountability
    group. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on
    Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
     
    Tags:


  2. Hanson

    Hanson Guest

    "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
    >
    > Bayer agreed to plead guilty to a criminal count and pay more than $250 million to resolve
    > allegations.....
    >
    OK..... But, it is YOU, the little consumer moron, that finally pays the $250 million.... in and
    thru higher prices. And, some government agency/court employees will get promotions & bonuses and
    you will get the higher price tag for your meds.........
    >
    > Boeing engineered a deal whereby the Pentagon would lease 767s for $27.6 billion. The deal may
    > unravel via an ex Pentagon employee. Boeing had hired her shortly after the company clinched the
    > deal. Then fired her.
    >
    OK..... that's a crooked deal, BUT with all your crying it's YOU who paid for it. YOUR (Fed) taxes
    already paid for this. The 767 WILL be used. The money game here will only redistribute your dough,
    with lawyers and the broad getting a chunk of it. But YOU will pay to read the story. Kind a pricey
    gossip...ahahaha.... BUT, you seem to love it.....
    >
    > Brighthouse' advertising/consulting/ strategic advice company, is using MRIs to monitor activity
    > in people's brains triggered by advertisements.
    >
    What's so bad or criminal about it? The MRI manufacturers have saturated the med/health market and
    wanna find new customers. What's your problem with this? The same thing is done now with less
    sophisticated methods. Your crying ain't gonna stop progress. Get into the act, buy some stock and
    make a buck off this. Why should you be the only one left broke and whining green tears?

    > Clear Channel consuming or squashing locally owned radio stations, violating the law -- by
    > advertising without obtaining permission of the second party -- on 36 separate occasions over the
    > last 3 years.
    >
    So what? That is standard, competetive capitalist free market issue. Get into the act, buy some CC
    stock and make a buck off this. Why should you be the only one left broke and whining green tears?
    >
    > Diebold, a manufacturer and peddler of its electronic voting machines fails test of qualifications
    > for the voting process. Its CEO has worked as a major fundraiser for President George Bush.
    > Diebold threatened lawsuits against activists who've shown the failures.
    >
    Diebold is right with its threats until it is proven that the accusations are more than conjecture.
    The insinuation that the CEO has done wrong with his fundraising for Bush may backfire onto these
    political hacks. Anyway, you bringing up this item merely shows the color of your political
    orientation. What's so big about that? Both sides do shit like this.

    > Halliburton is pulling in billions in revenues for contract work -- in Iraq. $$Millions, appear to
    > be overcharges. analysts say the charges for oil provision amount to "highway robbery."
    >
    OK..... a bad crooked deal too. BUT, even with all your crying it's YOU who paid for that via YOUR
    (Fed) taxes already. This work WILL go on. The money game played here will simply and only
    redistribute the dough with you getting jack shit, zero, silch or worse, for you may get a possible
    stop to your Bush tax rebates/refunds,..... but lawyers and govt agency and court employees will get
    promotions and bonuses out of this.

    > HealthSouth: 15 of its top executives have pled guilty in connection with a multi-billion dollar
    > scheme to defraud investors, CEO Scrushy, is fighting the charges. But thanks to attorney Bob
    > Bennett, it appears the company itself will get off scot free. No indictments, no pleas, no fines.
    >

    herring, a diversionary tactic. A CORPORATION IS A FEW PAGES OF PAPER! A corporation don't care.
    It's the innocent little people IN the corp. that you will hurt by fining the "corporation". To
    boot, in this deal you'll get a broom stick up your ass in from of higher premiums, while Bob can
    buy himself a new yacht, Scrushy may have to pay less taxes after they get done with him, but he
    still will luxuriate in his villas and the 15 execs may not get any bonuses this year because that
    money will go to their attorneys and the prosecutors and the govt agency/court employees who will
    get promotions and bonuses from this which you have paid for. But, you don't care about that as long
    as you can cry and whine big green crocodile tears..... ....and feel like the tragic heroine that
    nobody loves and cares for..... .....ahahahhahahaha....you are a real winner!

    > FDA in January 2004 denied Inamed's application for marketing approval of silicone implants .
    >
    Some women suffered, rightly or wrongly, about/from this. But most women who want bigger tits get
    them anyway, whether you cry or not. The money in this litigation went to lawyers, the prosecutors
    and the govt agengy/court employees as usual. And you can continue to cry in the wilderness, while
    all the other participants in this game here are raking in the bread, big time. The silicones are
    only the chips in this money game. The "hurt" women provide the "musical" background for the show.
    The money, that's the gig!

    > Merrill Lynch: Fresh off of a $100 million fine levied because analysts were recommending stocks
    > that they trashed in private e-mails, the company saw three former execs indicted for shady
    > dealings with Enron. The company itself managed to escape with no prosecution in exchange for
    > "oversight."
    >
    Hey, try to see the bigger picture. Such machinations happen as a matter of routine, daily, as can
    be seen in that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Every now and then a show trial is held
    to keep the peasantry in

    who get fried are the ones who, for one reason or the other, don't play the game right in their
    upper class circles. So, they get them out of the rich boy/girl club by turning them into the
    "machinery of justice"...ahahahahah.. You of course, get to celebrate and pay the ticket for all
    this. ahahahahaha...

    > Albertsons and Ralphs (Kroger's), Safeway's Vons and Pavilion stores are asking employees to start
    > paying for a major chunk of their health insurance. Workers and their families will lose $4,000 to
    > $6,000 a year in health insurance benefits.
    >
    Since when do you want to pay more for the groceries than you already do? Are you that stupid in
    your crying that you believe that A CORPORATION THAT IS A FEW PAGES OF PAPER will pay for their
    health insurance? It's YOU, you moron, who has no insurance for yourself nor for your own kids, that
    is crying loudly here to pay for THEIRS!

    ......ahahahaha......yeah, the mentations of you green turds...ahahaha

    However, it is good and right for the ordinary consumer to keep eye on corporate doings. But, in
    another "however" there is an even more sinister angle and side to this "corporate exposure"
    game, namely:

    It is very transparent that ALL "counter puncher" types and so-called or self anointed consumer
    advocates appear to get into the act for the sole reason and purpose to ALSO MAKE MONEY OFF the
    messes and hence are no different then the attorneys and the crooks and the government employees
    that feed of it.

    Life is a money game and the wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the oil. So, don't be so phony
    about your "noble" whining, admit to your real motivation and brag about it. At least that way I
    could respect you.

    Carry on and improve and hone your craft........ahahahaha.... and kindly remember: "I didn't make
    this world. I only have to
     
  3. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
    > >
    > > Bayer agreed to plead guilty to a criminal count and pay more than $250 million to resolve
    > > allegations.....
    > >
    >
    > OK..... But, it is YOU, the little consumer moron, that finally pays the $250 million.... in and
    > thru higher prices.

    As with most of Mr hansons statements there is only a partial truth here. The consumer ultimately
    pays for all of the mistakes that business leaders make ( though lost opportunity, higher prices,
    etc ) but then so does the investor, the managers and the workers. It is the feedback to the
    managers and investors that ultimately determines if the business succeeds or fails ( this is the
    basis of capitalism, i.e. competititon among producers and for products ).

    The big problem is that there is no absolute standard. As long as you are doing better than your
    peers, you will succeed. This allows for a slow and steady decline in quality as each generation
    takes over with less and less concern for their abilities and performance while having more and more
    belief in their superiority by birth. This is the problem of all economies/government built on
    herditary aristocracies ( including plutocracies based on capitalism).

    >And, some government agency/court employees will get promotions & bonuses and you will get the
    >higher price tag for your meds.........

    Yes, to some degree the ideology of capitalism fails due to the tendency for the elite to support
    'their own'. However, the investors have no such stake in friendship so if they can be mobilised,
    the fault can be repaired or limited.

    <snip>
    > Carry on and improve and hone your craft........ahahahaha.... and kindly remember: "I didn't make
    > this world. I only have to

    so much cynicism for one so young...
     
  4. Hanson

    Hanson Guest

    "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
    > > >
    > > > Bayer agreed to plead guilty to a criminal count and pay more than $250 million to resolve
    > > > allegations.....
    > > >
    > > OK..... But, it is YOU, the little consumer moron, that finally pays the $250 million.... in and
    > > thru higher prices.
    >
    > The consumer ultimately pays for all of the mistakes that business leaders make ( though lost
    > opportunity, higher prices, etc ) but then so does the investor, the managers and the workers.
    >

    Aren't "investors, the managers and the workers" not consumers too? Is that what your astrological
    charts tell you?......ahahahahah....

    >
    > The big problem is that there is no absolute standard. belief in their superiority by birth. This
    > is the problem of all economies/government built on herditary aristocracies ( including
    > plutocracies based on capitalism).

    be this way. Or do you personally finance Project Headstart at the expense of your kids and grand
    kids out of your meager savings from a lifetime and hardship of labor? Do your chart tell you that
    or are your just doing green grand standing again.......you phony prick!

    > >And, some government agency/court employees will get promotions & bonuses and you will get the
    > >higher price tag for your meds.........
    >
    > Yes, to some degree the ideology of capitalism fails due to the tendency for the elite to support
    > 'their own'.

    Capitalism is far from being an ideal. EVERY CAPITALIST knows that! Besides, "govt./agency/court
    employees will get promotions & bonuses" that are even bigger and fatter in NON-capitalist systems.

    > However, the investors have no such stake in friendship so if they can be mobilised, the fault can
    > be repaired or limited.
    >
    Can it? The greens buy one or two shares of companies they don't like all time, to whine and
    complain at stockholders' meeting. Funny thing is that if they are good/effective enough at it,
    their green fades away quickly and you suddenly see them in a well paid position.........Wake up,
    you whining green dreaming dork!

    > <snip>
    > > Carry on and improve and hone your craft........ahahahaha.... and kindly remember: "I didn't
    > > make this world. I only have to

    >
    > so much cynicism for one so young...
    >
    Does it crank you?....ahahahaha......or are you jealous?.....ahahahahaha You begin to sound like a
    green Jesus with an astrological chart in hand. ahahahahaha.......ahahahahanson
     
  5. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >From: "hanson" [email protected]

    One quick search on hanson:

    From: Roger Coppock ([email protected]) Subject: [email protected] is a Troll Newsgroups: alt.global-
    warming, sci.environment, talk.environment, uk.environment Date: 2001-12-11 08:35:45 PST

    Only trolls, hackers, and spammers use fake addresses. Below is what was returned when I attempted
    to send an E-mail to [email protected] It's unfortunate. I had such high hopes for "hanson," and
    even did some research for him.

    Another troll who occasionally visits this newsgroup that you should add to your killfile list is

    Anonymous <[email protected]>

    who writes like *hanson*
     
  6. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
    > > > >
    > > > > Bayer agreed to plead guilty to a criminal count and pay more than $250 million to resolve
    > > > > allegations.....
    > > > >
    > > > OK..... But, it is YOU, the little consumer moron, that finally pays
    the
    > > > $250 million.... in and thru higher prices.
    > >
    > > The consumer ultimately pays for all of the mistakes that business
    leaders
    > > make ( though lost opportunity, higher prices, etc ) but then so does
    the
    > > investor, the managers and the workers.
    > >

    Well, at least I tried. One cannot argue with a fool or a child, but on usenet it is bet to test for
    the possible presence of rational thinking. As you fail the test consistently, I leave you to your
    babblings.
     
  7. Hanson

    Hanson Guest

    "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    >
    > Well, at least I tried. One cannot argue with a fool or a child, but on usenet it is bet to test
    > for the possible presence of rational thinking. As you fail the test consistently, I leave you to
    > your babblings.
    >
    ahahahaha.......ahahahahaha......AstroloIan.....get a hold of yourself: ....You sounded like a green
    Jesus with an astrological chart in hand just an hour ago? Now, you are sneeringly angry and huff
    and puff like a green turd who didn't get the graft from permit charges and user fees. Your drastic
    switch from a green Jesus-wanna-be to a green turd comes from your belief in & following of icons,
    idols & role models like this:

    -----***** start: Quotes from environmental leaders *****-----

    "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention
    of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
    effective and being honest."
    - Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor who first sought fame as a global cooler, but has now hit
    the big time as a global warmer)

    "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the
    greenhouse effect." -- Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment
    for the Conservation Foundation

    "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people believe is true ... You are what the
    media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine." -- Paul Watson,
    co/founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard

    "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it up on the spot ... for the
    mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant." -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's
    Guide to Strategy.

    "A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate. But that's the way we sell messages in
    this society. We use hype." -- Dr. Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, Univ.of Washington

    "We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries
    like ours is the disease, not the cure." -- Paul Elrich, Stanford U biologist and Advisor to Vice
    President Gore

    "We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be
    considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian
    brothels." -- Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany

    "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids
    who shoot birds." -- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd

    -----***** end: Quotes from environmental leaders *****-----

    Why should anyone be surprised? The green movement was always and exclusively a machination and a
    cover to get grants, permit charges & user fees for the green shits, be they consultants, activists
    or regulators.

    Environmental turdism runs across and far, far beyond political and ideological party lines. The
    right wing, conservatives, have an equal if not bigger number of green turds amongst them, then
    the lefties do. Turdism/Turdry begins when principally noble ideas are exploited for personal
    gain. The perversion of the noble goals begins as soon as the old adage to riches is introduced
    and applied: ********* "Find a need and fill it" ********* Modern, current turdism is so vile
    because the bastards, the green shits expanded it successfully into ********* "Create a fear and
    feed off it". *********
     
  8. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    >
    >
    >EXCERPT:
    >
    >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    >breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing
    >that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.

    In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a, what
    about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant articles to a.s.b-
    i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)

    You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but breast
    implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.

    [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of course
    I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know what she'll
    say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  9. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >From: [email protected]

    Listen up, David.

    ANYTHING that has to do with HEALTH is appropriate on ANY health newsgroup.

    Why is it so important WHO agrees with you??? This is not a popularity contest.

    THE END.

    Jan
     
  10. [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

    >[So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    >interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    >course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know what
    >she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]

    Actually, I sort of agree about Ritalin, but the discussion should start from talking about ADHD and
    its treatments not from "Ritalin is bad".

    Breast implants and the badness of Inamed have nothing to do with alternative medicine.They are
    totally on-topic for a.s.b.i.

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  11. Rod

    Rod Guest

    Well David,

    The matter of breast implants are and will be of significant importance to those affected, as for
    ADHD (Ritalin) this is of significance as it is a drug that is not clean in its application and
    effect. (demonstrated on numerous occasions) Both topics are relevant without being biased.

    Cheers, Rod.

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    > >
    > >
    > >EXCERPT:
    > >
    > >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    > >breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing
    > >that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.
    >
    > In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a, what
    > about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant articles to a.s.b-
    > i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)
    >
    > You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but breast
    > implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.
    >
    > [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    > interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    > course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know what
    > she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    > shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  12. Rod

    Rod Guest

    Hmm Peter,

    After reading your views on Hotel rooms and then STFU I think your views do not matter any more.

    Cheers. Rod. "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:
    >
    > >[So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    > >interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    > >course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know
    > >what she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]
    >
    > Actually, I sort of agree about Ritalin, but the discussion should start from talking about ADHD
    > and its treatments not from "Ritalin is bad".
    >
    > Breast implants and the badness of Inamed have nothing to do with alternative medicine.They are
    > totally on-topic for a.s.b.i.
    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles The Green Light
    > http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added
    > Vitamins and
    C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  13. "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    > >
    > >
    > >EXCERPT:
    > >
    > >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    > >breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing
    > >that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.
    >
    > In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a, what
    > about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant articles to a.s.b-
    > i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)
    >
    > You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but breast
    > implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.
    >
    > [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    > interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    > course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know what
    > she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]

    I agree that BOTH subjects are off topic in m.h.a.

    However, when mis-information is posted regarding a medication I am extremely familiar with, based
    on 14 years of experience, I will correct it.
     
  14. "Rod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Hmm Peter,
    >
    > After reading your views on Hotel rooms and then STFU I think your views
    do
    > not matter any more.

    Your views never mattered.
     
  15. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Well David,
    >
    >The matter of breast implants are and will be of significant importance to those affected, as for
    >ADHD (Ritalin) this is of significance as it is a drug that is not clean in its application and
    >effect. (demonstrated on numerous occasions) Both topics are relevant without being biased.

    A claim for which you have provided no actual reasoning. Obviously, any topic will be important to
    someone affected by it -- but that doesn't make it reasonable to post it on m.h.a.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >EXCERPT:
    >> >
    >> >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    >> >breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very thing
    >> >that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.
    >>
    >> In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a, what
    >> about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant articles to a.s.b-
    >> i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)
    >>
    >> You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but breast
    >> implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.
    >>
    >> [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    >> interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    >> course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know
    >> what she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]
     
  16. Rod

    Rod Guest

    David,
    I do not have to provide reasoning to your unreasonable statements. MHA is
    to discuss all things relating to health alternatives.
    If the matter were about testacles I suspect you would object also for the
    very same reason about breasts. ie: you have none of each.

    Cheers, Rod

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >Well David,
    > >
    > >The matter of breast implants are and will be of significant importance
    to
    > >those affected, as for ADHD (Ritalin) this is of significance as it is a drug that is not clean
    > >in its application and effect. (demonstrated on numerous occasions) Both topics are relevant
    > >without being biased.
    >
    > A claim for which you have provided no actual reasoning. Obviously, any topic will be important to
    > someone affected by it -- but that doesn't make it reasonable to post it on m.h.a.
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    > shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    >
    >
    >
    > >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> In article <[email protected]>, Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >EXCERPT:
    > >> >
    > >> >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for silicone
    > >> >breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the very
    > >> >thing that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.
    > >>
    > >> In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a, what
    > >> about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant articles to
    > >> a.s.b-i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)
    > >>
    > >> You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but breast
    > >> implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.
    > >>
    > >> [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    > >> interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    > >> course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know
    > >> what she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]
     
  17. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
    >David, I do not have to provide reasoning to your unreasonable statements.

    Translation: "I can't do it."

    >MHA is to discuss all things relating to health alternatives.

    That's true. And Ritalin is a prescription medication, which mens it's not a "health alternative."
    And breast implants are implanted by surgeons, which means they aren't "alternative" either.

    >If the matter were about testacles I suspect you would object also for the very same reason about
    >breasts. ie: you have none of each.

    Aww, Rod, it hurts me so deeply to have a pathetic, brainless little wimp like you insult me.

    Returning to our muttons, however, I would agree that a discussion of testicular implants, or any
    other kind of surgical implants, is off- topic for m.h.a.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >Well David,
    >> >
    >> >The matter of breast implants are and will be of significant importance
    >to
    >> >those affected, as for ADHD (Ritalin) this is of significance as it is a drug that is not clean
    >> >in its application and effect. (demonstrated on numerous occasions) Both topics are relevant
    >> >without being biased.
    >>
    >> A claim for which you have provided no actual reasoning. Obviously, any topic will be important
    >> to someone affected by it -- but that doesn't make it reasonable to post it on m.h.a.
    >>
    >> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]...
    >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Ilena <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02052004.html
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >EXCERPT:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Inamed: The California-based company sought Food and Drug Administration approval for
    >> >> >silicone breast implants, even though it was not able to present long-term safety data -- the
    >> >> >very thing that led the FDA to restrict sales of silicone implants a decade ago.
    >> >>
    >> >> In view of my question the other day about the legitimacy of Ritalin discussions on m.h.a,
    >> >> what about breast implants? (Here, at least, it's reasonable for Ilena to post implant
    >> >> articles to a.s.b-i, a claim we can't make about Ritalin :)
    >> >>
    >> >> You might be able to gin up some sort of argument that Ritalin is relevant to m.h.a, but
    >> >> breast implants aren't, or at least I can't see why they are.
    >> >>
    >> >> [So far, Orac and Ilsa9 mostly agreed with me about Ritalin, whereas Peter B did not. I'd be
    >> >> interested to hear the reactions of all three to the question of implants on m.h.a, though of
    >> >> course I'll welcome the opinions of others -- well, except for Jan Drew, since I already know
    >> >> what she'll say, and it won't make any more sense than did her last screed.]
     
Loading...