Research is King!

[Rolfe]

From "Protect your Nostrums", this week.Research has shown that today's powerful airport X-ray scanners can affect medications, especially homeopathic medicines because they contain minute amounts of active ingredients that are more susceptible to the ionizing radiation from airport scanners.And what research would that be, then?

Of course there isn't any. Randi referred to the source of this earlier, an advice leaflet issued by the Society of Homoeopaths warning people that security scanners (which are quite weak x-ray sources actually, they won't fog film) would inactivate homoeopathic remedies. Seems to be a formalisation of speculation and guess-work, coming from people who believe the woo-woo that homoeopathic remedies have some sort of mysterious "energy" in them.

Homoeopaths fight like ferrets in a sack about this. Some are all for following the advice, just in case. Others say categorically that their remedies are no different after being through the scanners (guess which lot I believe). They can't agree. The argument rages back and forth, absolutely sterile.

The one thing they'll never do is devise and execute an experiment to test the theory that scanning has an effect. Which of course doesn't stop them claiming that "research shows", because it sounds good.

This is probably just an example of the general "get-out clause" effect. When a homoeopathic remedy doesn't seem to do anything, one of the regular approaches is to cast around for some explanation. So, did the patient drink coffee while taking it? Yes? Oh well then, of course it wouldn't work, that must have antidoted it. Or who did you get the remedy from? Oh, these people are notoriously unreliable (and don't start asking questions about quality control of homoeopathic products if you know what's good for you). Or did you take any allopathic medication at the same time? What? You were on the pill? Oh well then, how did you expect it to work? Airport scanners sound like the same category. (Doesn't seem to stop remedy manufacturers supplying them by post, which could easily end up on a plane, being duly scanned in the process - just as nobody will ever actually tell you to stop drinking coffee or come off the pill before you start your course of medication.)

What this ignores is the obvious question, are there other occasions when coffee wasn't forbidden, or the same supplier was used, or a patient was on the pill, or the remedy went through a scanner, when there seemed to be no problem with the efficacy? Of course there are. (70% of stuff gets better no matter what you do. How do you think homeoeopathy works in the first place?)

So we have the people who dreamed up the excuse for one case then pontificating about the effect as a general rule, arguing the toss with those who don't seem to have spotted the same effect. Forever. Research it? Don't be silly, ve don't do no steenkin research. Ve pontificate from a position of utter pig-sh*t ignorance.

(I quite admire the seller of the actual scam under consideration. Don't just confine the product to homoeopathy, though mention it because that's the source of the silly idea, and the woos are the most easily scammed like this anyway. But make sure you also imply that all medicine, even the ordinary stuff made of molecules that has even less chance than a photographic film of being affected by a scanner, probably needs to be protected too!)

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, you know how sensitive homeopath remedies are. One molecule of anything touches it, and its energy is irreversibly altered. I wonder how sterile the conainers are that the homeopath water goes into? One little fungi spore or speck of dust could upset the whole thing. Thing is, once it hits the mouth or body, it's game over for the water, it will then be mixed with all kinds of junk.

So just imagine what x rays will.

:rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
One molecule of anything touches it, and its energy is irreversibly altered. I wonder how sterile the conainers are that the homeopath water goes into?Yes, and that's another really good question.

I've never managed to pin down a homoeopath on the question of purity of solvent. Do they use distilled water? Deionised water? And actually, it's not water at all but a water/alcohol mixture. What proportions? And how pure is the alcohol? Surely this matters - but I've never heard anyone suggest that the mysterious "memory of water" which many of them still believe in required a particular proportion of water to alcohol, why not, sounds pretty critical to me. Then of course the final carrier is usually some sort of sugar pill, lactose or sucrose. Ordinary table sugar? AnalaR grade sucrose? What?

Mostly they don't understand the question. Or if they do, they see it's a trap. Because, if the products aren't pure, who knows what you're diluting and succussing, mate? But if you insist on purity, then how come it all worked for Hahnemann? Don't know what supplies were available 200 years ago, but I doubt if they had deionisers and I'll bet he didn't use distilled water even if it was available.

Try asking them and they'll just tell you to go away and enrol in a course and study to learn all about the great art.

I'd rather be brainwashed by the KGB.

Rolfe.

[geni]

One of the homeopaths aver at hapthy mentioned suceswsing in tap water. The genral arugument is that after the first couple of steps it doesn't matter sine the contaminat will be at much lower potecy than the rememdy. They don't seem to think about the first few steps.

Hahnemann would have had acess to distilled water (the technology behind distillers goes back for as long as people have wanted to make something stronger than wine). I'm not sure he would have been able to get anything over 95% ethanol since you can't get any higher by distilling.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Hahnemann would have had acess to distilled water (the technology behind distillers goes back for as long as people have wanted to make something stronger than wine). I'm not sure he would have been able to get anything over 95% ethanol since you can't get any higher by distilling. Yes, I know the technology existed, and would have had to be used for the alcohol part. And what you said about the maximum strength of ethanol attainable (yes, I learned stuff the day I did the guided tour of the Glenturret distillery).

But do we know if distilling was understood to produce very pure water, and do we know if Hahnemann used distilled water if this was known? I'm not sure anyone actually understood about distilling water back then, and I'm fairly sure Hahnemann neither knew nor cared.

Rolfe.

[Kopji]

Unfortunately the logic goes: an artificial problem has been identified that now needs 'solving'. It will be a short matter of time before someone will be selling x-ray protection devices for the homeopathic solutions. Maybe a tin-foil cap for bottles? A magnetic ball that creates a protective field when hit by the x-rays? I can hardly wait to see...

Scan-Shield(TM) The new must-have spray for world travelers... $10 a bottle. "FDA cleared".

This is what I dislike most about this homeopathy stuff - it is sort of a perversion of what business is supposed to actually do.

[dann]

Making money is "what business is supposed to actually do", and making money is what even homeopathy definitely does. This purpose, however, does indeed "pervert" a lot of things: pollutes the air and water, ruins the health of employees and sells inferior products sometimes not fit for human consumption. None of this seems to be a problem for business, neither do products catering to superstition.

[Kopji]

A comparison would be:

A business that creates pollution, so another part of their company can clean it up.

A brewery that runs an alcohol rehab center.

A religion that promises forgiveness of sin.

Creating a shortage, to drive costs up.

Not that businesses do not do these things, but the activities are ultimately self destructive. To create an artificial need, and then meet it, returns nothing to society and is a bit similar to what a computer virus does. Takes and gives nothing back at all.


Pervert:
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : MISDIRECT
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : MISUSE b : to twist the meaning or sense of : MISINTERPRET
http://m-w.com

[Zep]

Rolfe,

Why don't you start a sideline in selling some inane product that will "protect" homeopathic remedies against X-rays, cosmic-rays, N-rays, whatever. I suggest those standard little plastic pill-bottles you use for animal medicine would be eminently suitable. I'm seeing psychically into the future that you will "discover through your research" that they have this magic protective power!

Perhaps a price of, say, three times their purchase price would be good. Then you could cover the cost of buying at least some supplies for your practice. And can I get royalties on the idea if it takes off?

:D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Zep
Why don't you start a sideline in selling some inane product that will "protect" homeopathic remedies against X-rays, cosmic-rays, N-rays, whatever.Ethics?

Besides, we've been gazumped. The original report concerned a company marketing a "treated" bag for just this purpose.

Rolfe.

[dann]

Originally posted by Kopji
A comparison would be:
A business that creates pollution, so another part of their company can clean it up.
I am not really sure what you are getting at. Why not simply create pollution, make a buck and let somebody else clean it up - if at all?!
A brewery that runs an alcohol rehab center.
Very good for cultivating the public image of a company. You can do it, or you can abstain from doing it. You won't run out of customers anyway, alcoholics or ordinary consumers.
A religion that promises forgiveness of sin.
Don't all religions??! What would be the point of one that didn't?
Creating a shortage, to drive costs up.
Or creating more potential consumers, creating a dependency, to drive costs up. Or lowering your costs (e.g. wages or costly precautions against pollution) etc. to make your product cheaper and thus more competitive: Oust the competition!
And never forget: a potential consumer is only somebody with purchasing power. Even the hungriest (or starving) Africans are uninteresting if they cannot buy your product! For the same reason products like Viagra, Regaine and Minoxidil are better for business (even if they were only slightly effective) than a 100 % effective vaccine against bilharzia!
Not that businesses do not do these things, but the activities are ultimately self destructive.
No, they are not! Destructive, sure, but why self-destructive? As a successful CEO you don't have to drink tap water, you don't have to work at your own industrial plant, and you don't have to dust your own crops - or eat them!
You don't even have to believe in your own religion! Who has earned more money, L. Ron Hubbard or James Randi?
To create an artificial need, and then meet it, returns nothing to society and is a bit similar to what a computer virus does. Takes and gives nothing back at all.
That would be an interesting concept: the computer virus that does not delete, but instead cleans up your hard disk and makes it run work more effectively!

[Kopji]

No, they are not! Destructive, sure, but why self-destructive? As a successful CEO you don't have to drink tap water, you don't have to work at your own industrial plant, and you don't have to dust your own crops - or eat them!
You don't even have to believe in your own religion! Who has earned more money, L. Ron Hubbard or James Randi? -dann

A company is responsible to its stockholders, and CEO's are hired and fired all the time.

There are some religions that do not use 'sin' as a leveraging tool to gain or keep customers.

On the issue of pollution, businesses cannot pollute without our help. I do not need to work in the industrial plant to purchase their products and thus contribute to their pollution. My organically grown produce get to market how?

Evil business guy
Screwing my customers over is ultimately self destructive. Market dynamics are against me. First, satisfied customers might tell two or three others about my product, but a dissatisfied one is going to tell a hundred (or probably more, with the Internet).

Second, in selling products that add no value to someone's life, I tend run out of customers.

That second pesky problem just means I need to create more customers. But the new customer pool has already been polluted by my dissatisfied customers. A way around this second problem is to own or control the media so that customer inter-communication can be manipulated. This is actually largely what happens with homeopathy. Does anyone see any homeopathy website ever warn ANYONE of a product 'out there' that plainly does not work so they will not sell it? I'd love an example to show me wrong.

So the Internet in this case, serves as a business tool for controlling homeopathy information: Only promote testimonials, and suppress complaints.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kopji
Does anyone see any homeopathy website ever warn ANYONE of a product 'out there' that plainly does not work so they will not sell it?This is a difficult area in general, though. In my own business of clinical laboratory testing I know of several tests that don't work and I won't sell them, but I can't say that in clear on a web site or anywhere else for fear of legal repercussions from the people who do sell them. All I can do is explain personally to clients why we don't offer these tests.

In an area that isn't regulated or is poorly regulated, the people doing the selling are at an advantage because they are pretty much free to put out their positive message. Then if anyone tries to sound a note of caution it's target practice on the messenger.

Rolfe.

[dann]

Originally posted by Kopji

A company is responsible to its stockholders,
Exactly! And people with money tend to buy stocks in order to fight pollution and superstition, right?! This is what we hear in stock market reports all the time: ”Levels of pollution up 2.3 per cent!”
and CEO's are hired and fired all the time.
And so what??!
There are some religions that do not use 'sin' as a leveraging tool to gain or keep customers.
Scientology??
On the issue of pollution, businesses cannot pollute without our help. I do not need to work in the industrial plant to purchase their products and thus contribute to their pollution.
And the levels of pollution or wages is something that no company neglects to mention right on the package for every potential consumer to see, right??! (Being allergic to certain foodstuffs and additives I am used to reading the declaration of contents very carefully, so I would have noticed if that were the case!)
My organically grown produce get to market how?
Evil business guy
Screwing my customers over is ultimately self destructive. Market dynamics are against me. First, satisfied customers might tell two or three others about my product, but a dissatisfied one is going to tell a hundred (or probably more, with the Internet).
And as we all know homeopathic customers tend to be very satisfied customers!
Second, in selling products that add no value to someone's life, I tend run out of customers.
Not at all! Selling products by making customers believe that value is added to their lives is the point. And as I have already pointed out: A customer is not simply somebody whom you have persuaded to believe that your product would make an essential or just minor difference in his or her life. A customer is somebody with enough money whom you have persuaded …
That second pesky problem just means I need to create more customers. But the new customer pool has already been polluted by my dissatisfied customers.
See above!
A way around this second problem is to own or control the media so that customer inter-communication can be manipulated. This is actually largely what happens with homeopathy. Does anyone see any homeopathy website ever warn ANYONE of a product 'out there' that plainly does not work so they will not sell it?
Is that very different from any other line of business?!
I'd love an example to show me wrong.
So what is the value being added to the lives of people who believe in homeopathy?!
So the Internet in this case, serves as a business tool for controlling homeopathy information: Only promote testimonials, and suppress complaints.
Exactly! Make people believe and buy! Our satisfied (= deluded) customers prove us right!

[Kopji]

dann
If all companies are the same (bad), and just out to make a buck, what is the big deal about a few homeopathic ones? If customers are buying their product, and saying they like it, what’s the difference? Who put you in charge? If all companies are alike, to single out a homeopathic one is cowardice: a lack of will to take on the seriously bad guys face on.

There are vast numbers of workers who feel that their job is an integral part of having a good life. They believe what they are doing must follow certain ethics, and their honest behavior would eventually destroy a company from within, if it did not reflect their personal values.

From a business perspective, a homeopathic company is similar to a computer virus. A homeopathic company does not have characteristics that good businesses have.

One of those characteristics mentioned by Rolfe, is research. Yes, something to ask a homeopathic company is how much profit is returned to research. 15-25% is normal. Research is not only to find new products, but an ongoing cycle that improves existing product quality.

My comment on CEO’s derives from an impression that there is a hugely simplistic view of how companies actually work. Over in the astrology thread it was implied that if they could just get in and convince the CEO astrology worked, that would be "it".

The other simplistic notion is that CEO’s make all the money. The shareholders do, but that might be millions of people. So go ahead and complain about pollution, but if you have a managed retirement fund, you are one of the polluters too. ‘We have met the enemy and it is us’ so to speak.

The 'sin and forgiveness racket' is pretty much a narrow slice of world religions. Many religions offer a social environment or ‘moral ecology’ to live in. Yeah it might really suck, but it is not based on guilt from sin.


Scientology??

No need to insult me. :D

[dann]

Originally posted by Kopji
dann
If all companies are the same (bad), and just out to make a buck, what is the big deal about a few homeopathic ones? If customers are buying their product, and saying they like it, what’s the difference?
Well, they may like them, but the homeopathic ones don’t work!
Who put you in charge? If all companies are alike, to single out a homeopathic one is cowardice: a lack of will to take on the seriously bad guys face on.
I don’t single out the homeopathic ones!
There are vast numbers of workers who feel that their job is an integral part of having a good life. They believe what they are doing must follow certain ethics, and their honest behaviour would eventually destroy a company from within, if it did not reflect their personal values.
Your point?! They feel and they believe, yes. So do the users of homeopathic remedies ... Was Enron destroyed by the ethics of its employees? Have you never quit a job because you could not stand e.g. the working conditions? I know that I have, but the company did not go bankrupt for that reason (nor did I expect it to).
From a business perspective, a homeopathic company is similar to a computer virus. A homeopathic company does not have characteristics that good businesses have.
From a business perspective the homeopathic company that makes a lot of money is a good investment. And some homeopathic companies have those characteristics!
One of those characteristics mentioned by Rolfe, is research. Yes, something to ask a homeopathic company is how much profit is returned to research. 15-25% is normal. Research is not only to find new products, but an ongoing cycle that improves existing product quality.
Well, I would not ask them that particular question: They could probably come up with several interesting ways of purifying water! However, even if 50% of the profit of a homeopathic company is used for research, my guess is that it would not improve the quality of the product significantly. It is already as good as it gets!
My comment on CEO’s derives from an impression that there is a hugely simplistic view of how companies actually work. Over in the astrology thread it was implied that if they could just get in and convince the CEO astrology worked, that would be "it".
The other simplistic notion is that CEO’s make all the money. The shareholders do, but that might be millions of people.
Well, some are definitely more equal than others. But I will not insult you by implying that you are not already aware of the fact!
So go ahead and complain about pollution, but if you have a managed retirement fund, you are one of the polluters too. ‘We have met the enemy and it is us’ so to speak.
No, it is not! The enemy is a way of producing that makes it profitable to impoverish your workers and pollute natural resources. If you have a pathetic retirement fund and think that in that capacity you are responsible for pollution, then you might as well go out and buy a homeopathic remedy to relieve the pain …
The 'sin and forgiveness racket' is pretty much a narrow slice of world religions. Many religions offer a social environment or ‘moral ecology’ to live in. Yeah it might really suck, but it is not based on guilt from sin.
… or you might join an environmentalist group and use jute instead of plastic (or whatever). It will not put a stop to pollution, but it will definitely give you absolution from the sin of having a retirement fund. (My point being: This attitude isn’t even limited to religions!)
No need to insult me. :D
I wouldn't dare!

[Kopji]

dann
I'm not sure we are that far apart, but maybe so.

I know too many people who care that their businesses not only prosper, but are meaningful in more ways than just making money. Perhaps my thinking that business can be a positive influence is similar to how some people feel about religion.

At least we have cool graphs to show ROI!
We can measure quality, measure product scientifically to help make decisions, and have a sense that we did our best even after making mistakes. There is an honesty in the simple process of knowing that homeopathic companies will never understand or appreciate.

I wish you well.

[Virgil]

homeoapthy must be a cult....


I'm in chemistry and we must do experiment that prove/ or disprove our line of thought.

homeoapthy never proves anything. simple experiments would prove or disprove thier claims


It's a cult

Virgil

[dann]

I have a lot of catching up to do in the Forum!
Originally posted by Kopji
dann
I'm not sure we are that far apart, but maybe so.
We are so far apart that we are not even talking about the same thing, I’m afraid. I am talking about business. You are talking about your own and other businessmen’s good intentions:
I know too many people who care that their businesses not only prosper, but are meaningful in more ways than just making money. Perhaps my thinking that business can be a positive influence is similar to how some people feel about religion.
The analogy is very good! In my discussions with astrologers and other representatives of superstition I often hear them refer to their own and their colleagues’ intentions. ‘There may be a few rotten eggs in the basket, but basically we all (or at least 90%) mean well.’ And a lot of them probably do – which does not make them less wrong, of course.
This attitude is by no means restricted to the fields of business and superstition. I meet it all the time when I debate with my (teacher) colleagues who tend to confront facts of the trade with their own personal ideals. As teachers in the Danish “gymnasium” we have to teach and grade our students, thus deciding who is eliminated from the competition for certain desirable educations (and consequently: jobs!): If you do not get a certain average, you will not be able to study to become a doctor, for instance. That is the role we play in the system of numerus clausus (you Americans use that term just like the Germans, don’t you?): We not only teach, but also help exclude students from a lot of attractive educations and careers. Confronted with this fact my colleagues tend to think and say that, of course, they regret the unfortunate way that the system works, but personally they feel that their mission as teachers lies elsewhere (whatever!). This, however, does nothing to change the fact, but may provide them with an attitude to the miserable conditions of the Danish educational system that makes it easier for them to work within it.
You may be a very nice guy, Kopji. I guess that you probably are, and so are most of my colleagues. But that does not change the way business works. As a businessman one may, for instance, have wonderful intentions of helping people in Third World countries. If these people do not have the money to buy the very good products that one sells, the business is worth nothing as a business, no matter how honest and well-intentioned one is. The rules of that game do not allow it. Think of the pharmaceutical industry and its opposition to letting Third World countries have Aids medication at very reduced prices for the people who cannot afford the regular prices. They had to be forced to lower their prices in Third World countries - and even so most of the victims of the disease will probably have to choose between food and medication, i.e. two alternative ways of dying.
That is the way business works.
You may choose to distinguish between good and bad business ethics. Nobody stops you. The laws of business, however, do not say that only the good guys make a buck. They don’t even decree that, on average, the good guys make more money than the bad guys. But to persuade yourself that the bad guys in business will probably be punished – if what they do is not against the law?! - for that equation to work you will have to invent a god to keep track of the bad guys and punish them in the afterlife. According to the laws of this planet, for the time being, you should not hope for any kind of retribution.
At least we have cool graphs to show ROI!
We can measure quality, measure product scientifically to help make decisions, and have a sense that we did our best even after making mistakes. There is an honesty in the simple process of knowing that homeopathic companies will never understand or appreciate.
I think that we do agree on what constitutes a homeopathic company. And when you say that the homeopathic companies will never be able to appreciate the honesty of knowing, I could not agree more.
I wish you well.
Me too.

[Kopji]

dann
Welcome back.

It's not that I agree with your comments, but I find it difficult to approach them in a way I think might be productive or helpful. I am not beyond taking a break and trying again later.

I cannot speak to the Danish education system. I know there's plenty to complain about in the American one.

Americans tend to have a cultural notion that people are mostly responsible for their own life. Yeah I know that's not always true, but runs deep.

A difference in our perspectives on business may be:
If our company hires someone "without a good education" but they show ability over time, we often pay to send them school to get a degree or whatever might help them benefit the business even more. Yes, this is self interest and not some altruistic motivation, but so? I guess I do not see why rewarding people according to ability is a bad thing.

If the 'ability' happens to be a talent for deception or selling worthless things, that's not a foundation for good business.

Not sure the point you are making with AIDS...

This the same countries that turn away shipments of food because they might be genetically altered? The same people whose religion rejects using condoms?

This does not seem like a clear example of bad business.

numerus clausus: I'm not familiar with the phrase, but hey, I'm from Arizona ;)

Also the sentiment you expressed of teachers being some sort of pass/fail gateway to a better job might be an example of a cultural difference.

[dann]

Oh, Kopji! Just when I thought that you were a nice guy you come up with something like this:
This the same countries that turn away shipments of food because they might be genetically altered? The same people whose religion rejects using condoms?
Exactly! When people die because they cannot afford the medication that might save them, they are to blame!
When you pass a beggar in the street, you can rest assured that he is actually a work-shy millionaire trying to make an easy living at your expense. We all know that he is being picked up by a limo and taken to his mansion when the day is done. The cardboard boxes are just part of the illusion.
Some Americans do indeed “tend to have a cultural notion that people are mostly responsible for their own life.” And so do a lot of Danes, by the way. Our prime minister is the most prominent one.
Get real, Kopji! You come up with these questions even though you claim that you are “Not sure the point making with AIDS…”!!?
But let’s just pretend that you did not get it! Let me give you another example. This one is from the frontpage of one of the biggest Danish newspapers, Politiken, Sunday, April 18, 2004:
“Negative test results are shelved by pharmaceutical companies”
“25,000 Danes use the asthma medicine Severent. A large-scale test showed a slightly increased risk of deaths and asthma attacks endangering the lives of some people. But the test results have not been published – as in the case of other negative results.”
You still don’t get it?! Let me spell it out for you then!
1) We are not dealing with homeopathic companies in this case: These guys actually test their product!
2) What is the purpose of making this product? To help people? Well, if that were the case, they would not have to hide its adverse effects from the users, would they? No, the purpose is making money! In other words: We are talking business! Right?
3) What is the purpose of business, then: To make as much money as possible! You obviously don’t do that by telling your (potential) customers about the adverse effects of your product. It’s much better for business to hide negative test results!
From the same article:
“According to a study by The British Medical Journal on average it takes pharmaceutical companies three years more to publish the tests showing negative results in comparison with tests that show the positive qualities of the drug.
If they are published at all.”!!!
This may not be “good business”, Kopji, but it is definitely business.
Remember: We agree that homeopathy sucks! Its drugs don’t work!
My only objection is to using business as the ideal that homeopathy has to live up to. As my examples show: Business and research do not always get along. And remember: Homeopathy is business too!
I am not beyond taking a break and trying again later.
Feel free to do so, but please don’t come back and tell me that the dead asthmatics probably brought it upon themselves because they smoked too much!
[i]numerus clausus: I'm not familiar with the phrase, but hey, I'm from Arizona ;)
In my dictionary the Danish word adgangsbegrænsning is translated with restricted admission; restricted intake; (at university etc.: numerical) numerus clausus;
Another way of preventing people from acquiring the knowledge and skills that they find desirable is to let education be restricted to the people who (or whose parents) are able to pay for it.

Oh, I almost forgot this one:
A difference in our perspectives on business may be:
If our company hires someone "without a good education" but they show ability over time, we often pay to send them school to get a degree or whatever might help them benefit the business even more. Yes, this is self interest and not some altruistic motivation, but so? I guess I do not see why rewarding people according to ability is a bad thing.
What do you think happens if an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company producing Severent, develops the ability to empathize with the customers to such a degree that he leaks negative test results to the press? Would they send him to school to help him benefit the business even more? Or would they fire him, selfishly, and would that be a good or a bad thing?!

[Kopji]

Exactly! When people die because they cannot afford the medication that might save them, they are to blame!

The problems of the world are more complex than can be solved by looking for a place to assign blame. People die of hunger, thirst, poor living conditions. Is a water company in England to blame for not shipping clean water to India? This seems the direction this logic takes us.

Get real, Kopji! You come up with these questions even though you claim that you are “Not sure the point [I am] making with AIDS…”!!? – dann
I do not get the point you are trying to make because the evidence shows the opposite of what you claim. Companies are not only providing drugs to poor countries at discounts, they are sometimes giving the drugs away:
The foundation headed by former President Bill Clinton has brokered an agreement with four generic drug companies to cut the cost of certain AIDS antiretroviral drugs, improving the chances that they will be more widely distributed in the developing world, the New York Times reports.
The drugs will be provided in African and Caribbean countries where the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative is working to strengthen the delivery of healthcare, treatment, and prevention. Working with the World Health Organization, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Bush administration, among others, the initiative aims to provide drugs to two million people by 2008. The target countries in Africa — Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, and Tanzania — represent about a third of the AIDS cases on the continent, while those in the Caribbean — the Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States — represent more than 90 percent of the region's AIDS cases.
"I applaud these manufacturers for doing the right thing," said the former president in a statement. "This agreement will allow the delivery of life-saving medicines to people who desperately need them. It represents a big breakthrough in our efforts to begin treatment programs in places where, until now, there has been virtually no medicine, and therefore no hope." http://fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=47700006

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- Pfizer Inc. is offering to give away an expensive AIDS drug to poor South Africans, a move that follows a series of protests and raises hopes other pharmaceutical companies will follow suit.
The drug, Diflucan, treats cryptococcal meningitis, a lethal brain infection that occurs in nearly one out of 10 HIV-patients.
In South Africa, the daily dose of Diflucan costs about $15, far more than the country's many poor can afford. Those with the infection must take medication for the rest of their lives.
The HIV and AIDS Treatment Action Campaign, an advocacy group, had lobbied the New York-based Pfizer for a year to reduce the drug's price, said volunteer coordinator Midi Achmat. Last month, a group of protesters broke into Pfizer's New York headquarters to demand a meeting with Chairman William Steere, though ultimately met with a lower-level executive.
Thabi Nyide, associate director of corporate affairs in Pfizer's Johannesburg office, said Monday that the lobbying was "probably part of a stream of events that led to this and not the only factor."
"With or without the demonstration, I'm sure we would have done something," she said. "This is a response to an unmet medical need in the country."
http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2000/AP000401.html

I think your point is better made with the lack of reporting adverse findings for drug tests.

Actually I agree that European testing standards need to be strengthened. Drug companies tend to release product outside the US first, because the standards are much more lax. Try to make them stronger and what is the complaint? That government is taking away people’s right to choose what medicines they will take. So yes, if you are claiming that the same mindset that allows homeopathic companies to flourish is the same attitude that allows mainstream companies to ‘test’ drugs on you and I, we agree. SO WORK TO CHANGE THE ATTITUDES. Businesses simply create and meet markets, fixing the problem from that end seems like missing the target and would be a short term fix at best.

[dann]

Originally posted by Kopji
The problems of the world are more complex than can be solved by looking for a place to assign blame. People die of hunger, thirst, poor living conditions. Is a water company in England to blame for not shipping clean water to India? This seems the direction this logic takes us.
I am not looking for somebody to take blame. And I don’t claim that the pharmaceutical companies have invented the AIDS virus, just that their objective is not to cure AIDS, but deliver medicine to people who are able to pay for it, which is why a lot of people die from curable diseases.
I do not get the point you are trying to make because the evidence shows the opposite of what you claim. Companies are not only providing drugs to poor countries at discounts, they are sometimes giving the drugs away:
Thank you, Kopji. Well, “giving away”, I don’t really know … I really enjoyed your quotations, though, in particular:
“a move that follows a series of protests” and
“The HIV and AIDS Treatment Action Campaign, an advocacy group, had lobbied the New York-based Pfizer for a year to reduce the drug's price, said volunteer coordinator Midi Achmat. Last month, a group of protesters broke into Pfizer's New York headquarters to demand a meeting with Chairman William Steere, though ultimately met with a lower-level executive.
Thabi Nyide, associate director of corporate affairs in Pfizer's Johannesburg office, said Monday that the lobbying was "probably part of a stream of events that led to this and not the only factor."
"With or without the demonstration, I'm sure we would have done something," she said. "This is a response to an unmet medical need in the country."”

Well, they probably would have done something without the demonstration, but I am not so sure exactly what. If their good intentions were there from the beginning, why did the protesters lobby the company for a year – and apparently in vain until they broke into the company’s headquarters? I think I see a connection here, and I don’t even believe in synchronicity!
I think your point is better made with the lack of reporting adverse findings for drug tests.
Actually I agree that European testing standards need to be strengthened. Drug companies tend to release product outside the US first, because the standards are much more lax.
It’s even cheaper to kill people in Third World countries. I was astonished to hear the price of Iraqi lives when Danish soldiers killed some fishermen last year. They are much cheaper than Europeans! And you could probably do it for free if you used drugs instead of bullets.
Try to make them stronger and what is the complaint? That government is taking away people’s right to choose what medicines they will take.
Where did you hear that argument? From another Pfizer spokesperson?
So yes, if you are claiming that the same mindset that allows homeopathic companies to flourish is the same attitude that allows mainstream companies to ‘test’ drugs on you and me, we agree. SO WORK TO CHANGE THE ATTITUDES.
You are not seriously trying to persuade me to break into Pfizer’s Copenhagen office, are you?
Businesses simply create and meet markets, fixing the problem from that end seems like missing the target and would be a short term fix at best.
I don’t think it’s that simple:
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/currency.html
I’m thinking long term, and I intend to put an end to the problem instead of just trying to fix it again and again!

PS You are beginning to sound a little like a Scandinavian-style Social Democrat. I mean, ‘strengthening the testing standards which are too lax’ thus restricting free enterprise! You haven’t converted recently, have you?!

[Kopji]

Where did you hear that argument? From another Pfizer spokesperson?

This is the great homeopathic justification isn’t it? People should be free to choose and decide for themselves? "Mean bad old government out there trying to keep helpful products from us so the big bad drug companies can make their money instead."
Sheesh, I find it a claim behind almost every questionable product.

When we set aside science and being skeptical about health products, don’t we willingly offer ourselves up as test subjects? The attitude that needs to change is lack of skeptical curiosity.

Thanks for the anti capitalism (socialism?) article. The world sucks, but there you have it. Sounds familiar like I’ve read it before. Most of that stuff sounds alike and it is hard to tell. I can’t imagine what it has to do with anything, maybe you should start a socialism discussion.

The last paragraph of the last footnote was interesting; but I thought Argentina was a failure of socialism, not capitalism.
Yet it slowly rises from the ashes:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2269404

PS:

Oh, Kopji! Just when I thought that you were a nice guy you come up with something like this…

You are beginning to sound a little like a Scandinavian-style Social Democrat. I mean, ‘strengthening the testing standards which are too lax’ thus restricting free enterprise! You haven’t converted recently, have you?!…

Where did you hear that argument? From another Pfizer spokesperson?

I tolerate these out of a perhaps too ingrained sense of courtesy, but they do become tiresome. They are a type of reasoning fallacy generally known as
“Appeals to Motives in Place of Support”.
More specifically:

Prejudicial Language
Definition:
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 153, Davis: 62
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm

Fallacy works kind of like it says, sometimes better. Sort of like putting sugar on Frosted Flakes. –shrug-

Anyway, I still wish you well although it sounds a bit more extremist than before. Humm, not that extremists are always bad… if I were one I’d take my proud place setting myself on fire or something dramatic. But, I’m not.

I’ll leave some space for someone else here…
Bye