Re: More Evidence that Drug Makers Should Not be Allowed to Design and Perform Their Own Studies



R

Richard Schultz

Guest
In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:

:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are responsible
:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the corporation
:>from paying their legal fees?
:
: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.

And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?

: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.

It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.

-----
Richard Schultz [email protected]
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:


>:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are responsible
>:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the corporation
>:>from paying their legal fees?
>:
>: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.


>And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?


This can be made an automatic severe penalty. The paper
trail (or electronic trail) then becomes a necessity for
them surviving.

>: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
>: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
>: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
>: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.


>It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
>legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.


But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
50% of drugs currently fail safety tests? A typical drug
which has passed all the current tests has about 20% of the
users getting side effects, many quite serious or even fatal.

BTW, physicians should make sure that their patients have
gone through the material on a drug before they leave the
facilities, or they become liable for anything not disclosed.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
R

Richard Schultz

Guest
In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>,
: Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
:>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:

:>:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are responsible
:>:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the corporation
:>:>from paying their legal fees?

:>: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.

:>And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?

: This can be made an automatic severe penalty. The paper
: trail (or electronic trail) then becomes a necessity for
: them surviving.

In other words, you want to replace one unwieldy useless bureaucracy with
another unwieldy useless bureaucracy.

:>: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
:>: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
:>: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
:>: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.
:
:>It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
:>legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.
:
: But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
: 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests?

Before there was a regulatory system in place, did people take the chance,
knowing that most drugs had not undergone *any* safety tests?

-----
Richard Schultz [email protected]
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
 
G

GMCarter

Guest
On 26 Mar 2007 16:52:31 -0400, [email protected] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are responsible
>>:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the corporation
>>:>from paying their legal fees?
>>:
>>: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.

>
>>And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?

>
>This can be made an automatic severe penalty.


Automatic! LOL...magical!! Whee! It just happens, all by itself! A
penalty automatically comes knocking at the door, recognizing that a
crime has been committed and say to the well-heeled CEO, gosh, golly,
gee, sir, you have lied through your teeth and destroyed evidence and
now you will beat yourself silly with me because I am the Automatic
Severe Wet Noodle Penalty! No government needed!!

Just add honesty and integrity....

oops...

Dear god. Are you really a professor of something???
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>

wrote:
>
> >:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are

responsible
> >:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the

corporation
> >:>from paying their legal fees?
> >:
> >: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.

>
> >And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?

>
> This can be made an automatic severe penalty. The paper
> trail (or electronic trail) then becomes a necessity for
> them surviving.
>
> >: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
> >: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
> >: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
> >: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.

>
> >It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
> >legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.

>
> But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
> 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests? A typical drug
> which has passed all the current tests has about 20% of the
> users getting side effects, many quite serious or even fatal.
>
> BTW, physicians should make sure that their patients have
> gone through the material on a drug before they leave the
> facilities, or they become liable for anything not disclosed.
>

Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want to
risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example, and
always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone take
it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I have
some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Richard Schultz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>

wrote:
> : In article <[email protected]>,
> : Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>

wrote:
>
> :>:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are

responsible
> :>:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the

corporation
> :>:>from paying their legal fees?
>
> :>: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.
>
> :>And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?
>
> : This can be made an automatic severe penalty. The paper
> : trail (or electronic trail) then becomes a necessity for
> : them surviving.
>
> In other words, you want to replace one unwieldy useless bureaucracy with
> another unwieldy useless bureaucracy.
>
> :>: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
> :>: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
> :>: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
> :>: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.
> :
> :>It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
> :>legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.
> :
> : But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
> : 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests?
>
> Before there was a regulatory system in place, did people take the chance,
> knowing that most drugs had not undergone *any* safety tests?
>


Look, we need the tests. Is anyone saying we do not?
 
G

GMCarter

Guest
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:46:24 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>

snip...
> Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want to
>risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example, and
>always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone take
>it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I have
>some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.


Now you've gone and done it. Had the temerity to be an INDIVIDUAL and
not a statistical average requiring a holistic, individual management
for your lviing situation. Oops....a physician might actually be
forced to think and not merely pull the latest drug reps overpriced
**** out of the drawer to hand to you perfunctorily.

Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.

Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.

What we need is a Single Payer Healthcare system like they have in
France (the best in the world by some measures).

George M. Carter
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"GMCarter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:46:24 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >

> snip...
> > Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want

to
> >risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example,

and
> >always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone

take
> >it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I

have
> >some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.

>
> Now you've gone and done it. Had the temerity to be an INDIVIDUAL and
> not a statistical average requiring a holistic, individual management
> for your lviing situation. Oops....a physician might actually be
> forced to think and not merely pull the latest drug reps overpriced
> **** out of the drawer to hand to you perfunctorily.
>
> Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.
>
> Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.
>
> What we need is a Single Payer Healthcare system like they have in
> France (the best in the world by some measures).
>
> George M. Carter
>


It does not really matter who provides the treatment if the side effects are
what you are worried about. So little is known about the chemistry of the
human body that right now we are really in the dark ages about cancer, heart
attacks and stroke, the only "remaining" killers if you don't die of
accident or infection. Look at the HRT scandal. Look at the stent scandal.
Procedures first. Evaluation after billions of $$$ later. At least drugs
have to be given research first. Surgery needs evaluation too, but it is
not being done.
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:
>: In article <[email protected]>,
>: Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]> wrote:


>:>:>And just how are you planning to prove which individuals are responsible
>:>:>for making the statement? And how are you planning to stop the corporation
>:>:>from paying their legal fees?


>:>: The first part is easy; just keep the paper trail.


>:>And when the corporation "accidentally" loses the paper trail?


>: This can be made an automatic severe penalty. The paper
>: trail (or electronic trail) then becomes a necessity for
>: them surviving.


>In other words, you want to replace one unwieldy useless bureaucracy with
>another unwieldy useless bureaucracy.


>:>: The other part of my proposal is that the manufacture is
>:>: not responsible for what is not known. This will give
>:>: them incentive for full disclosure; if something else
>:>: shows up, no grounds for a lawsuit.
>:
>:>It gives them incentive not to test their drugs so that they can
>:>legitimately claim that they did not know of the dangers.
>:
>: But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
>: 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests?


>Before there was a regulatory system in place, did people take the chance,
>knowing that most drugs had not undergone *any* safety tests?


Most drugs had undergone small safety and effectiveness
tests, at least those produced by the pharmaceutical
companies. How many drugs can you name which were
marketed by companies such as Lilly or Bayer before
the recent large amount of testing which can be called
really bad? Most of the testing was on those who
designed the drugs or their coworkers.

How much safety and how much effectiveness do you want?
You cannot get it all. The FDA held up metformin, the
drug now most used as the initial drug treatment for
diabetes, and very often with others, for YEARS, when
it was being used in Europe. The same is true for
beta blockers, used to treat hypertension.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>

>wrote:


.................

>> But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
>> 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests? A typical drug
>> which has passed all the current tests has about 20% of the
>> users getting side effects, many quite serious or even fatal.


Many drugs now fail the initial tests on animals, and work
well on humans, and conversely. This includes the safety
tests on animals; only rarely does such a drug get tested
on humans.

>> BTW, physicians should make sure that their patients have
>> gone through the material on a drug before they leave the
>> facilities, or they become liable for anything not disclosed.


> Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want to
>risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example, and
>always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone take
>it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I have
>some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.


Sometimes not that. I can take any dosage of aspirin, but
I have problems with muscle relaxants. The "safety and
effectiveness" studies to date, with few exceptions, give
no guidance as to what genetic and environmental conditions
affect the response, and how it does it.

I have odd reactions to other drugs. Often, physicians have
to go by "common sense", which is usually uncommon and often
wrong. The point is, actions have to be taken.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> How much safety and how much effectiveness do you want?
> You cannot get it all. The FDA held up metformin, the
> drug now most used as the initial drug treatment for
> diabetes, and very often with others, for YEARS, when
> it was being used in Europe. The same is true for
> beta blockers, used to treat hypertension.


Herman, I have stated for years that if a drug is accepted in the EU, it
should be accepted here too. To say that science is bad in Europe is nuts.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>

> >wrote:

>
> .................
>
> >> But would intelligent people take the chance, knowing that
> >> 50% of drugs currently fail safety tests? A typical drug
> >> which has passed all the current tests has about 20% of the
> >> users getting side effects, many quite serious or even fatal.

>
> Many drugs now fail the initial tests on animals, and work
> well on humans, and conversely. This includes the safety
> tests on animals; only rarely does such a drug get tested
> on humans.
>
> >> BTW, physicians should make sure that their patients have
> >> gone through the material on a drug before they leave the
> >> facilities, or they become liable for anything not disclosed.

>
> > Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want

to
> >risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example,

and
> >always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone

take
> >it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I

have
> >some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.

>
> Sometimes not that. I can take any dosage of aspirin, but
> I have problems with muscle relaxants. The "safety and
> effectiveness" studies to date, with few exceptions, give
> no guidance as to what genetic and environmental conditions
> affect the response, and how it does it.


Yes, this is true. You only hope that if a side effect is common,
someone with that problem will be in the original study group.


>
> I have odd reactions to other drugs. Often, physicians have
> to go by "common sense", which is usually uncommon and often
> wrong. The point is, actions have to be taken.
>
>


But by the patient, since doctors go by cookbook rules. My wife found that
taking beta blockers gives her atrial fib, when they were supposed to help
her. Finally her physician listened to her.
 
G

GMCarter

Guest
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:37:35 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> How much safety and how much effectiveness do you want?
>> You cannot get it all. The FDA held up metformin, the
>> drug now most used as the initial drug treatment for
>> diabetes, and very often with others, for YEARS, when
>> it was being used in Europe. The same is true for
>> beta blockers, used to treat hypertension.

>
>Herman, I have stated for years that if a drug is accepted in the EU, it
>should be accepted here too. To say that science is bad in Europe is nuts.


The godlets know that Science in the united states has very sadly
taken a backseat to marketing and sales.

ALLHAT showed, for example, that a diuretic is your best bet for
hypertension--but still, they shovel overpriced **** down people's
throats who do not need it--and in fact may be causing harm. But no
head-to-head studies, short of this one, were otherwise done.

Science? Nope. Just marketing.

George M. Carter
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
GMCarter <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:46:24 GMT, "George Conklin"
><[email protected]> wrote:



>snip...
>> Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want to
>>risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example, and
>>always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone take
>>it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I have
>>some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.


>Now you've gone and done it. Had the temerity to be an INDIVIDUAL and
>not a statistical average requiring a holistic, individual management
>for your lviing situation. Oops....a physician might actually be
>forced to think and not merely pull the latest drug reps overpriced
>**** out of the drawer to hand to you perfunctorily.


I have REPEATEDLY posted against such actions by the
physician. For the physician not to discuss the
treatment with the patient as an intelligent customer,
and to point out the benefits and risks of the various
possibilities, should be considered malpractice. It is
the patient who should be given the relevant information
and make the decision. The physician should provide the
specialized information needed for this, and NOT decide.

Yes, the physician should be forced to think; those who
just "go by the book" I fire as soon as I can.

>Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.


>Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.


More socialist propaganda.

>What we need is a Single Payer Healthcare system like they have in
>France (the best in the world by some measures).


> George M. Carter


Or would we get what they have in Britain or Canada?

In the US, this will end up as government restrictions
to save money. This has already happened with Medicare
and Medicaid.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:

>"GMCarter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:46:24 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:



>> snip...
>> > Herman, it depends on how severe the disease is as to whether you want

>to
>> >risk the side effects. I have side effects with aspirin, for example,

>and
>> >always have. Yet it is generally recommended that virtually everyone

>take
>> >it. If I do, after about 3 days, I am miserable and have to stop. I

>have
>> >some very atypical symptoms too,. but they can be replicated every time.


>> Now you've gone and done it. Had the temerity to be an INDIVIDUAL and
>> not a statistical average requiring a holistic, individual management
>> for your lviing situation. Oops....a physician might actually be
>> forced to think and not merely pull the latest drug reps overpriced
>> **** out of the drawer to hand to you perfunctorily.


>> Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.


>> Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.


>> What we need is a Single Payer Healthcare system like they have in
>> France (the best in the world by some measures).


>> George M. Carter



>It does not really matter who provides the treatment if the side effects are
>what you are worried about. So little is known about the chemistry of the
>human body that right now we are really in the dark ages about cancer, heart
>attacks and stroke, the only "remaining" killers if you don't die of
>accident or infection. Look at the HRT scandal. Look at the stent scandal.
>Procedures first. Evaluation after billions of $$$ later. At least drugs
>have to be given research first. Surgery needs evaluation too, but it is
>not being done.


Sorry, we cannot wait that long. Would YOU agree to be
a subject in such a clinical trial? Only if you did not
care which procedure was used.

You exaggerate both the cost of the "unnecessary" procedures
and the ease of collecting the data.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
H

Herman Rubin

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> George Conklin <[email protected]> wrote:


>> >"Herman Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Richard Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >In misc.health.alternative Herman Rubin <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:


.................


>> Sometimes not that. I can take any dosage of aspirin, but
>> I have problems with muscle relaxants. The "safety and
>> effectiveness" studies to date, with few exceptions, give
>> no guidance as to what genetic and environmental conditions
>> affect the response, and how it does it.


> Yes, this is true. You only hope that if a side effect is common,
>someone with that problem will be in the original study group.


I have had uncommon side effects.



>> I have odd reactions to other drugs. Often, physicians have
>> to go by "common sense", which is usually uncommon and often
>> wrong. The point is, actions have to be taken.




> But by the patient, since doctors go by cookbook rules. My wife found that
>taking beta blockers gives her atrial fib, when they were supposed to help
>her. Finally her physician listened to her.


It should be malpractice for doctors not to listen to
patients. Too many of them seem incapable of doing so.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email protected] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
G

GMCarter

Guest
On 29 Mar 2007 13:12:37 -0400, [email protected] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

snip
>>Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.

>
>>Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.

>
>More socialist propaganda.


How would you know? You haven't read it.

It's the truth about the evils of capitalist propaganda and what
happens when that system is distorted into destructive ends.

All systems are fallible.

George M. Carter
 
R

RocketScience

Guest
On Mar 30, 5:52 am, GMCarter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2007 13:12:37 -0400, [email protected] (Herman
>
> Rubin) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.

>
> >>Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.

>
> >More socialist propaganda.

>
> How would you know? You haven't read it.
>
> It's the truth about the evils of capitalist propaganda and what
> happens when that system is distorted into destructive ends.
>
> All systems are fallible.
>
> George M. Carter


Important video relating to HIV and AIDS.

http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com/

HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? One of the most powerful video documentaries
of our time boldly reveals the modern medical-industrial complex's
dire descent into utter corruption. This feature-length expose
explains exactly how the 300-Billion-dollar AID$ fraud began, why HIV
can NOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and who
manipulates the public's good intentions while poisoning hundreds of
thousands with toxic drugs that cause the very disease they are
supposed to prevent. This is a systematic dissection of the HIV/AID$
machine and how they hijacked a program designed to fight a worldwide
plight of human suffering and drove it down the road to hell. Yet this
program offers hope, inspired by the courage and articulate arguments
of a group of growing voices internationally challenging the
HIV=AIDS=DEATH hysteria. A MUST SEE for anyone interested in truly
understanding the facts about HIV/AID$.

You will meet a number of highly reputable scientists who all agree
that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was the
first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is
joined by Nobel Prize winners Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr.Walter Gilbert,
along with Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in the field of protease
inhibitors

Is HIV/AIDS the golden idol of junk science? Judge for yourself.
Professionally produced, written and researched, acclaimed by
physicians, scientists, journalists and humanitarians internationally,
this is the video encyclopedia of HIV/AIDS dissident movement! THE
defining documentary on the HIV/AIDS fraud

rocketscience
 
G

GMCarter

Guest
On 9 Apr 2007 14:43:47 -0700, "RocketScience"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 30, 5:52 am, GMCarter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2007 13:12:37 -0400, [email protected] (Herman
>>
>> Rubin) wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >>Read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies.

>>
>> >>Not exactly on topic here--but an excellent book.

>>
>> >More socialist propaganda.

>>
>> How would you know? You haven't read it.
>>
>> It's the truth about the evils of capitalist propaganda and what
>> happens when that system is distorted into destructive ends.
>>
>> All systems are fallible.
>>
>> George M. Carter

>
>Important video relating to HIV and AIDS.
>
>http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com/


What a complete load of absolute ********. Where's the aluminum hats?

People with HIV who buy these lies have pretty much all died of AIDS.

The lies and distortions in this video have been amply refuted--and
indeed, rely on distorting science and research to support a crackpot
and deadly notion, promulgated by right wing psychotics.

George M. Carter
 
R

rocketscience

Guest
http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm

We are a global-reach voluntary group. Our goal is ensuring the
interests of AIDS-diagnosed people are no longer secondary to the
interests of drug suppliers, service providers and the Aids research
industry. Did You Know that many experts now contend AIDS is not a
fatal, incurable condition caused by HIV?

We bring you the voices of alternative scientists and reforming
campaigners worldwide. We are independent of vested pharmaceutical
and medical interests -offering readers and forum members, global news
and leading edge views on diagnosis and treatment.

Most of the information you receive is commercially driven and based
on misleading assumptions or unfounded estimates and predictions. The
symptoms associated with AIDS are treatable using non-toxic, immune
enhancing therapies that have restored health and have enabled those
truly at risk to remain well.

rocketscience