Clinton Foundation AIDS Program Distributed ‘Watered-Down’ Drugs To Third World Countries

a reply to: Xcathdra

What the hell.

Is there anything this woman touches that isnt messed up to upteenth degree?

I cant even.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why were they so cheap? Did they do NO quality control?

Or did they go with the cheapest bidders so as to keep the majority of funds for administrative purposes?

Spare no expense.....on office furnitre and travel luxuries.

Just a friendly reminder...

That this is the Elections forum NOT the Mud Pit. In short, personal attacks and any sort of trollery will not be tolerated here.

Remember that posts removed for political trollery are considered TWO warnings.

As always, do no reply to this post.

How is Clinton's Charity responsible for a pharmaceutical company altering its drugs?

The GOP scraping the barrel to come up with this stuff is getting ridiculous.

a reply to: Annee

The same way the defence department under Bush was to blame for a no name bidder on the Afghan deal, selling chinese munitions under embargo from the black market to the Afghan defence forces.

People over looked the product quality because the price was right, which made the profits bigger.

They still spent the money alloted, just not on the drugs.

Thats why.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Annee

The same way the defence department under Bush was to blame for a no name bidder on the Afghan deal, selling chinese munitions under embargo from the black market to the Afghan defence forces.

People over looked the product quality because the price was right, which made the profits bigger.

They still spent the money alloted, just not on the drugs.

Thats why.

I don't see the comparison.

Are you saying the Clinton foundation used black market drugs?

a reply to: Annee

I am saying they distributed a product that caused harm. They are responsible as much as the ones who produced them.

They should have verifed the quality. Should have spent more on quality drugs from an established supplier.

They spent the same amount they were going to spend on better drugs, but pocketed the excess.

The comparison is valid. The cheapest bidder should be double checked the way you check used brakes for your car.

The defence department KNEW the chinese munitions were being sold against embargo laws...but everything was over looked because the price was right. Same deal here.

They knew these drugs were not top quality. Thats why they were cheaper than dirt.

What they did with all the money alloted to this project remains to be justified, since it didnt go to prime drugs or quality control before distribution.

You get what you pay for. They think third world aids patients deserve second rate drugs.

The Clinton Foundation makes costly errors with the number
of supposed treated patients and the price of drugs in its
campaign to strike deals with foreign generic drugmakers.

I am asking why Clinton's always seek foreign drugmakers?

Supporting information and Report here:
www.aei.org...

Also:

the foundation claims that 79% of its money goes toward projects, it actually spent just over $5 million on grants in 2014. That amounts to a mere 5.6% of its total spending, and is far less than the foundation spent on conferences ($12 million), travel ($6 million) or fundraising ($6.7 million) that year. The Better Business Bureau also found that the foundation failed on two of its accountability measures for charities.

www.investors.com...

This is why I'm so upset at the HRC for endorsing Hillary. She and the Democrats care as little about the GLBT+ community and rights as the Republicans do. they found out the We can be used as a Political Chess Piece and started "Pandering" our Vote after 2013

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Sillyolme

Why were they so cheap? Did they do NO quality control?

Or did they go with the cheapest bidders so as to keep the majority of funds for administrative purposes?

Spare no expense.....on office furnitre and travel luxuries.

Maybe Martin Shkreli knows. He knows lots of other things we don't (or didn't).

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Xcathdra

Another day in the corrupt world of the Clinton Foundation I see...

Yeah but this day was 3 years ago. Nice timing huh?

a reply to: Sillyolme

So what happened? The drug company agreed to the price then supplied inferior drugs

Hillary probably asked for cheaper. Then agreed to the cheaper "watered down" version . Then used the savings to help fund her campaign.
Clinton is the penultimate description of corrupt
Dictionary :
Corrupt
Refer to the entry for Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Sillyolme

So what happened? The drug company agreed to the price then supplied inferior drugs

Hillary probably asked for cheaper. Then agreed to the cheaper "watered down" version . Then used the savings to help fund her campaign.

When people use the words "probably", "if" or "but" they really have no leg to stand on. As for funding her campaign, this was resolved 3 years ago.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Sillyolme

So what happened? The drug company agreed to the price then supplied inferior drugs

Hillary probably asked for cheaper. Then agreed to the cheaper "watered down" version . Then used the savings to help fund her campaign.

When people use the words "probably", "if" or "but" they really have no leg to stand on. As for funding her campaign, this was resolved 3 years ago.

Though some folks frequently forget the use of the words and present everything as fact...

a reply to: Gothmog

There is also the aspect of self serving philanthropy, as
Ranbaxy in turn turned around and donated to the
Clinton Foundation.

originally posted by: Annee
How is Clinton's Charity responsible for a pharmaceutical company altering its drugs?

The GOP scraping the barrel to come up with this stuff is getting ridiculous.

Because after the Indian company was warned by the US government over irregularities in the medication, they were subsequently banned f4rom selling the drugs in the US and were fined 500 million dollars. The Clintons kept doing business with them knowing what they were doing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's wonderful! I was waiting for some hard evidence to come out. You always here people defend the Clinton Foundation with the HIV drugs defense.

Glad I can swat that down too.

Thank you!

a reply to: Gothmog

Why do you always go with the absurd answers?

I'm sure Hillary nor Bill nor any member of the Clinton foundation had anything at all to do with the manufacturing of these drugs.

This is just another totally stupid idea advanced by the deplorables.

a reply to: tadaman

I don't know but QC would be up to the drug manufacturers still.
That's like blaming a traffic accident on the gas in the car.

a reply to: Sillyolme

When you are aware a company is selling watered down drugs, and you are aware the US government sent warnings to the Indian company regarding the irregularities in the drugs, and the US government bars the company from selling the drugs in the US, and when the US government fines the Indian company $500 million dollars, and after all that the foundation still buys the drugs and sends it to 3rd world countries, they are just as culpable as the drug maker.

Its not a "stupid idea advanced by the deplorable's".

Its a confirmed fact and also verification that Clinton supporters cant handle the truth and will resort to willful ignorance in order to dismiss criminal behavior while acting like snotty little elites who feel they are above the law.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you arent willfully ignorant or a snotty elite please refute the information you say is untrue and please cite your sources so we can see where the "mistake" was made.