It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's FDA green lights relaunch of Vioxx

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeapeopleProvide a source for your inforamation. Otherwise, you intentionally lied.


OMG he did!!

his number of 500,000 came from Ausi numbers!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the GD source AGAIN


Vioxx was first approved in Australia on June 30, 1999. In the year leading up to the drug's recall, there were almost 3.2 million prescriptions for Vioxx issued, with almost 500,000 people taking Vioxx in Australia at the time.




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Calm down people!!! Discuss the facts. don't get nasty at each other.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Name calling is just not cool! Bout Time, you are deteriating your own credibility with the constant SeaMonkey name calling....very un cool!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'm trying REAL hard Bandit!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Half,

There is nowhere that says anywhere in that article that from 1999 to the present, 500,000 people were prescribed vioxx. It specifically says 1999 and at that time.

If you read carefully, like anyone providing factual information should do, it says 500,000 people were taking vioxx at the time it was approved in 1999.

This statement is not mistakeable. It even goes on further, claiming that the number now is significantly bigger IN THAT VERY ARTICLE. It says that before the 100,000 number. Which means, to get to that point in the article, he had to pass over the statement which indicated a much larger number.

A source for information, is not one that says one thing which you then distort into another. A source would have said, 1 in 5 people had severe complications from vioxx. This article did not say that by any means.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Maybe it's easier for some to see the "little lies" of us ordinary people than it is to actually look and see just what BIG lies the gov't, health/drug insdustires, and big business are piling on to cover up the lies that they have told in the past.....some, now over a half century old, and still being covered up!!

I think they've made some major screw ups, and well, they don't want to tell us now.....so the lies keep on coming.
why do you think it is beneficial to them that we pay more attention to what our neighbors are eating, drinking, smoking, or how much excercise they are getting to begin with....it's a nice smokescreen, buying them time to at least save a little of the assetts in the corporate world from the negligence suits that many would be filing if they knew that their answer to the pollution that they were dumping into our rivers and air, was to find "useful" purposes for them in our food and the other products we buy!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Thats no excuse for us to stoop to that level.



I want to further my post by reiterating something. The original post in the thread did not state that 500,000 people were on vioxx in 1999. It stated that 500,000 people had been prescribed it since 1999. There may not be that many different words there, but its a HUGE difference.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I belive that he realised his err and posted as such;

Originally posted by Bout Time
On the contested numbers, it was either misread by me on one word (Australia), thus giving my "roulette" analogy no gumption, or talking about worldwide in that year.
That being said, I fail to see why the flames were set burning instead of simply giving your input to highlight what I missed?
The FDA's endorsement for major contributor Merck is lost on you, I suppose?



good point Dawnstar




[edit on 22-2-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Name calling is just not cool! Bout Time, you are deteriating your own credibility with the constant SeaMonkey name calling....very un cool!


It was 1975......I had saved my quarters.....I got Mom to order the SeaMonkeys from the back of an Avengers comic book.....I waited.....and waited.......back then, I was anticipating intelligent life to play & interact with......I guess the names and small degree of seperation in them brought back that disappointment too...


*anticipated retort to accusation: "no, it was not an Archies comic, it was the Avengers!!" *



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I am going to do something out of character here.

Bout time, I apologize for being so critical of you. I was too mean spirited.

As amazing as it might sound, some people are so willing to hate me, and hate our president, that they will actually believe the information you provided is correct, and that mine is false. On the good side, I made a point, and people saw it. Religion and politics seem to bring the worst out of people in regards to the truth. Try in the future to pay attention better. Then maybe people will be discussing the actual intent of your thread rather than the false content.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I really am still mystified at the flamethrower tact you took. But, I think it is telling that the word "hate" popped up so much; I'm sure nobody here hates you & thanks for the apology.
Many Bush supporters are frustrated because there's no overall perception of a mandate being accepted. Bush detractors are frustrated because they see the naked Emperor. THay dynamic is not going to dissappate.

To make the intent of the thread perfectly clear:
- The FDA is corrupt
- It's been that way for a long time
- It's reached new heights due to the Bush Administration
- It's harming Americans , as is the overall Bush Administration
- The quid pro quo to Merck's bottom line is bleedingly obvious



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join