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.

 

Bayer (Phamaceutical Company) Laces Drugs With HIV - Gets Caught

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Like I said before, if that is true then by all means string them up and stone them. But, they are being accused of this. Doesn't that mean they could be innocent? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty and not guilty because you're a big corporation?



Dae

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Ye gods people, I made a post up there somewhere and you have all ignored it.

Another source...

U.K., Italian Citizens Sue Bayer Over Blood-Clotting Products Allegedly Made With HIV-Contaminated Blood



... alleging that the companies knowingly sold blood-clotting products that could have been tainted with blood containing HIV and hepatitis C...

The suit also alleged that executives knew that the untreated Factor VIII potentially was tainted with HIV and that the product was sold on foreign markets for more than a year after the treated version was available to avoid wasting existing stockpiles


Alrighty now?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
You're right. Problem is that the case has been settled. We really won't know for sure.

That's why we are discussing what has been reported. I guess we could sit here all day and argue whether what has been reported is true or not. We really won't know unless the reporters reveal their sources. I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that somehow MSNBC and NY times must have gotten a hold of the internal documents. If not, why would they be reporting it? (yeah I know, it could be for ratings)

I understand your point. It would be nice to believe people are always on the up and up. However, many, many, many times the color of green can cloud their vision.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   


original quote by:Griff
Like I said before, if that is true then by all means string them up and stone them. But, they are being accused of this. Doesn't that mean they could be innocent? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty and not guilty because you're a big corporation?



Absolutely.. im saying fry those involved in any documented cases and investigate those that are under suspision. Of course it means they COULD be innocent and MUST be treated as such in a court of law.... UNTIL proven guilty. But the innocent until proven guilty looks good in theory but seldom does it manifest in practice. For alot of us(especially the poor) it is often times just the opposite. It is more frequent then not that only the top politicos and business types get the preferred innocent until proven ideal. And of course more and more big businesses ARE found guilty.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Obviously this story was pushed aside very fast and never again shown the light of day to the public & media.


Just to add that this is an extremely misleading thread title. What Bayer is accused of is not withdrawing blood based products once they had found out that some of them may have been infected with HIV.

Have you thought that the story was apparently "pushed aside" as it concerns Japan, and the US media didn't follow it for that reason? My bet is that it is all over the Japanese media.

Apart from the OP absolutely nobody has accused Bayer of "lacing" drugs with the virus:



Atsuaki Gunji, a ministry official who allowed the tainted blood products into the marketplace even after studies showed they were dangerous, said he thought only one or two people would be infected--not thousands.

Lawyers for the infected patients argue that the drug companies made a similar calculation.

A memo from the president of Cutter Inc., which became part of Bayer, shows that as early as 1982, pharmaceutical firms were aware of a link between blood transfusion and the then-newly discovered AIDS. The memo advised the firm to include a warning in the product packaging about risks, noting that "litigation is inevitable."

Separately, Baxter sent a warning letter to the Japanese government in June 1983 saying the firm was voluntarily stopping distribution of a particular batch of blood products because of infection risk--a memo that proves, lawyers say, that both the government and manufacturers were aware of dangers yet continued to use the products until mid-1985.

In that two-year interim, plaintiffs assert, hundreds of hemophiliacs were unnecessarily infected with HIV. Four hundred have already died.
source: www.aegis.com...


They may well have acted despicably, but there is no need (apart from trolling) to dress it up in such a sensaltionalist manner.




Obviously this is an act of murder on a massive scale. Population Control? You bet!

Maybe a maximum of 400 people may have died because of this. Japan's population is 160 million. Not very effective population control IMO. How much are you betting exactly?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
:sigh:

I'm just not going to post on this thread anymore. It really bugs me that people will look scientific and historical fact straight in the eyes and ignore it.

How could Bayer have known the products were tainted with HIV if no test for HIV existed until 1985?

How could anyone taking the Factor VII or other drug pinpoint their infection to that drug specifically? It's a self-injected drug. Were they using a clean needle?

HIV can be sexually transmitted. Did they have any unprotected sex?

HIV can be spread through contact with several contaminated fluids. Did they have contact with someone who was later found to be HIV+ in the hospital or otherwise?

All the people in these lawsuits have two things in common: they took Factor VII and they have a hemolytic disease. Hemolytic diseases often cause contact with many needles due to the necessary treatments, blood transfusions are are often necessary, and long hospital stays are common. There are just too many variables and "what ifs" for me to pinpoint the HIV to a drug when there was no test that could show the drugs were truly tainted.

MFP



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Maybe they didn't actually stand there and inject the HIV virus into the medicine vials. However they did know that some of it had been infected with HIV. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me the two acts are the same.

The problem I have is that they knew there would be infections and deaths from their actions. However, they decided to sell the stuff overseas anyway and will fight it out in court later. Do you think that's acceptable?

Before you answer, let me ask you, if your kid had hemophilia, would you inject him with Factor VIII? If not, would you do it if you knew you would be paid $100,000 if he died from it? $1,000,000? Any amount?


Dae

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
How could Bayer have known the products were tainted with HIV if no test for HIV existed until 1985?


1985 for US citizens, not the rest of the world.


How could anyone taking the Factor VII or other drug pinpoint their infection to that drug specifically? It's a self-injected drug. Were they using a clean needle?


Umm, I didnt think hemophiliacs did the whole 'sharing dirty needles' thing, how odd you saying that.


HIV can be sexually transmitted. Did they have any unprotected sex?


Umm... babies, yes, babies/children treated with factor VIII also got 'HIV' and/or Hep C.


There are just too many variables and "what ifs" for me to pinpoint the HIV to a drug when there was no test that could show the drugs were truly tainted.


Well that may be for you but not for the people conducting the lawsuit and the payouts that are occurring.


[edit on 26/5/06 by Dae]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
Maybe they didn't actually stand there and inject the HIV virus into the medicine vials. However they did know that some of it had been infected with HIV. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me the two acts are the same.


This is the thrust of ALL OF MY POSTS, which you have conveniently ignored. How could they know that the drugs from 1978-1984 (the period cited by the articles and the video) were contaminated with HIV if HIV wasn't discovered until 1984 and a test wasn't available until 1985? You still haven't answered that.


Before you answer, let me ask you, if your kid had hemophilia, would you inject him with Factor VIII? If not, would you do it if you knew you would be paid $100,000 if he died from it? $1,000,000? Any amount?


Yes, as a doctor, I would give them Factor VIII. Factor VIII is a clotting factor produced by your own body, thus if I were in that situation, I would give my child the clotting factor. Considering the fact that I see patients every day on this supplement, none of which have come down with so much as a staph infection at the injection site, I see no risk in using Factor VIII supplements. Just for your own reference, beginning in 1994, most pharmaceutical companies swtiched to synthetic Factor VII rather than plasma donated Factor VIII. This is because AFTER HIV tests were available (again, in 1985), it was found that HIV can be transmitted through plasma donation and thus was too risky for Factor VIII treatment.

A little medical knowledge would do a lot of good on this thread. Any other docs/nurses/techs/profs out there other than me?

MFP



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
bsl4doc:

I have to honestly say that you're missing the point here. Are you a Bayer Rep by any chance?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by bsl4doc
How could Bayer have known the products were tainted with HIV if no test for HIV existed until 1985?


1985 for US citizens, not the rest of the world.


How could anyone taking the Factor VII or other drug pinpoint their infection to that drug specifically? It's a self-injected drug. Were they using a clean needle?


Umm, I didnt think hemophiliacs did the whole 'sharing dirty needles' thing, how odd you saying that.


You're right Dae. No haemophiliac anywhere has ever done an IV drug or shared a needle. I wasn't aware haemophiliacs were saints?



HIV can be sexually transmitted. Did they have any unprotected sex?


Umm... babies, yes, babies/children treated with factor VIII also got 'HIV' and/or Hep C.


And? It seems MOST people in these lawsuits were not babies or children. Is it not possible these adults/teens named in the case had unprotected sex? Again, I wasn't aware that haemophiliacs were saints?



There are just too many variables and "what ifs" for me to pinpoint the HIV to a drug when there was no test that could show the drugs were truly tainted.


Well that may be for you but not for the people conducting the lawsuit and the payouts that are occurring.


There's a very easy way to explain the payout. Can you imagine the media circus that would ensue if a case went to court in which Bayer was accused of spreading HIV? Wouldn't you rather pay millions out of court even if you knew the case would be in your favor, just to avoid the bad PR?

Nice to see you make assumptions about guilt without all the evidence.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
bsl4doc:

I have to honestly say that you're missing the point here. Are you a Bayer Rep by any chance?


Hrmm, well, it appears your ORIGINAL point was that Bayer "laced" their drug with HIV. You then changed your point to the idea that Bayer simply knew there MIGHT be some infected drugs and ignored it.

MY point is that Bayer could not have known this as there was no known causative agent for AIDS until 1984, and it was not known that blood contact could spread HIV until then. There was also no way Bayer could have tested for HIV in the Factor VIII until 1985.

Now, remind where I lost sight of your point? Or are you just backed into a corner by the scientific evidence and your pseudo-science can't get you out?

MFP



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
"Nice to see you make assumptions about guilt without all the evidence."

But you're generalizing that hemophiliacs share dirty needles and have unprotected sex.

As a mechanical engineer I can honestly say "nice".

Any other doctors in the house?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Where did I say they laced it with HIV???



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
"Nice to see you make assumptions about guilt without all the evidence."

But you're generalizing that hemophiliacs share dirty needles and have unprotected sex.

As a mechanical engineer I can honestly say "nice".

Any other doctors in the house?


How am I generalizing by suggesting that it may be the cause of a few cases?

Can you show me where I accused all haemophiliacs of being IV drug users and sexually irresponsible?

I think you need to reread my post.

MFP



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Where did I say they laced it with HIV???


My mistake, I forgot you didn't start the thread. I apologize for that comment.

MFP

[edit on 5/26/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
It's not my thread doctor.

Edit - Accept the appology. I'm sorry. It's been a nice debate. However, I have to get back to work. Hope to catch up later.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by mecheng]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
It's not my thread doctor.


Please refer to the post immediately above your own. I apologized for making a mistake. For some reason I had thought you started the thread, which you clearly didn't.

EDIT: Didn't catch your edit in time, no problem.

However, your point is still that Bayer knew these supplements were infected and ignored. I have addressed this thoroughly and you have yet to offer any opposition other than calling named, accusing me of "missing the point" and basically just saying "Nuh-uh". So, got anything to back your side up?

MFP

[edit on 5/26/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
You have to read my posts. Once again, I can only go by the reports by MSNBC and NY times. The case was settled so we won't know for sure.

As for your other point, again I tried to answer you. The accusations went from 1978 to 1990. Therefore there were 5 years between 1985 and 1990 when they could have known.

I reall yhave to go. I hope this answers my point sufficienty.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
All sources related to the lawsuit state the period was 1978-1984. There was no mention of 1990.

MFP



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join