So Ebola and Big Pharmacy...In Bed Together?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Its true because they control their funding and this administration has proven time and time again...either toe their line or face the consequences. Surely you're not going to argue that fact?

You seriously think the scientific community would be of a different opinion were there a republican administration?

I cant honestly say. Im simply saying that there has been numerous articles about pressures within the scientific community not to waiver from the consensus AGW story line. Im not saying this a republican versus democrat issue even though the issue did emerge from the democrat party who has NEVER seen a problem that a tax couldn't fix. Its all about prospective revenues that a carbon tax would generate. I definitely do believe that!

[AUDub 11,147]

Its true because they control their funding and this administration has proven time and time again...either toe their line or face the consequences. Surely you're not going to argue that fact?

You seriously think the scientific community would be of a different opinion were there a republican administration?

I cant honestly say. Im simply saying that there has been numerous articles about pressures within the scientific community not to waiver from the consensus AGW story line. Im not saying this a republican versus democrat issue even though the issue did emerge from the democrat party who has NEVER seen a problem that a tax couldn't fix. Its all about prospective revenues that a carbon tax would generate. I definitely do believe that!

And I think that's nuts.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

FWIW, I didn't take his post as serious. I just read it as a hypothetical to put out there for discussion. Something that is within the realm of possibility but not that he had actual evidence it was happening.

Titan,

Thanks for commenting and I know as a Mod you wish to error on the side of free speech. I believe a person’s right to free speech does not cover slander and I believe the statements in this post qualified as such.

I guess I haven’t been in this forum long enough to see this type of extreme view by other posters, but now that I have, I understand there are virtually no limits. In the future, I will just point out the extreme views for what that are.

If you read the OP I can see why you didn’t view the OP as serious and that why I didn’t comment until this post reached 2 pages. If you read the other post in this tread you will see posters did respond in a way that indicated the OP was serious.

Here a few comments by other posters besides me.

A response to another poster who tried to justify the OP.

That link is not credible at all. Fun if you love keeping up with quackery, but bat**** insane.

Big Pharmaceutical companies have been accused of a lot of things but geez.

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

T4A. You're in infowars territory here.

It's extreme but it's allowed.

Report it to the mods if it bothers you that much. As I said earlier, though, this particular subsection of the forum is, by nature, very different from others. We are given broad latitude to share our opinions. Even if they are, well, nuts.

Really, with the slander lol. Least notice that my statements are in print, and thus being in print I believe should be called libel.

Opinions

It was presented as a question (and even if it wasn't) hypothetically, I did not make a statement of fact that pharmacy companies were currently or actively planning to bring in and expose Americans to Ebola. I in fact state that I am not presenting this as a statement of fact in post 89.

Statement of fact, in post 89 I state that this is 100% my personal opinion that it would not surprise me.

If you really want to call me libel, then imagine the defamation of character and potential harm to professional life and personal character that my one relative, a current student at The University of Alabama, or my other relative, a graduate of the University of Alabama's law school could claim with this board. Based on statements that are represented as facts by multiple members of this board, or even through just opinions if you believe that an opinion not represented as a statement of fact is cause for libel. BG03 could probably really have a good time and possibly retire.

Truths can not be considered libel.

My comments on GSK involving lawsuits and unethical practices involving Americans. Truth, link provided in post #20

My comments that the major pharmacy players care about profits vs getting people medication they need. Truth, link provided in post #20

My comments that there are pharmacy companies that would let people be injured/harmed/die before allowing them to receive their medication if there is not profit. Truth, Bayer vs India

n an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers said that his company’s new cancer drug, Nexavar, isn’t “for Indians,” but “for western patients who can afford it.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/bayer-pharmaceutical-ceo-cancer-drug-only-for-western-patients-who-can-afford-it/

My comments that GSK, a company that has profited from unethical behavior in the United State previously, is at the front of leading development now that there is profit. Truth, link provided in # 20.

My comments that there are those in the world of pharmaceuticals that believe ethical concerns will be a issue due to the need to fast track a vaccine. Truth, link provided in #20.

Truth and Statement of Fact, I am not responsible for other posts by members of this board.

For whatever reason, you have taken major offense to my personal opinion. That is fine. You have negatively referred to my character. You have made accusations about me,that can be considered both civil and criminal. You have faulted me for the thoughts of others, and you have attempted to play the rules against me in a biased method imho for the sole purpose of censoring me.

Perhaps you work in pharmaceuticals and opinions such as mine are not good for the business. That is fine. Take it up with companies such as GSK and Bayer that make negative opinions about the industry warranted.

Perhaps you strongly disagree with the opinion or idea that one does not trust types of corporations to put Americans or the Worlds needs over theirs. Again fine. Take it up with companies such as GSK and Bayer that make negative opinions about the industry warranted.

Prove me wrong. Demonstrate in a civilized academic manner that such opinions are unwarranted. In fact I would love to say that every corporation in America while doing it's part to earn a profit, has at its core a desire, goal, and honest sincerity in doing what it believes is best for the American people.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Its true because they control their funding and this administration has proven time and time again...either toe their line or face the consequences. Surely you're not going to argue that fact?

You seriously think the scientific community would be of a different opinion were there a republican administration?

I cant honestly say. Im simply saying that there has been numerous articles about pressures within the scientific community not to waiver from the consensus AGW story line. Im not saying this a republican versus democrat issue even though the issue did emerge from the democrat party who has NEVER seen a problem that a tax couldn't fix. Its all about prospective revenues that a carbon tax would generate. I definitely do believe that!

And I think that's nuts.

What a shock. You mean we disagree again? Well, lets see, I think you're nuts for being so easily lead. See how easy it is to pursue that line of reasoning?

[AUDub 11,147]

Its true because they control their funding and this administration has proven time and time again...either toe their line or face the consequences. Surely you're not going to argue that fact?

You seriously think the scientific community would be of a different opinion were there a republican administration?

I cant honestly say. Im simply saying that there has been numerous articles about pressures within the scientific community not to waiver from the consensus AGW story line. Im not saying this a republican versus democrat issue even though the issue did emerge from the democrat party who has NEVER seen a problem that a tax couldn't fix. Its all about prospective revenues that a carbon tax would generate. I definitely do believe that!

And I think that's nuts.

What a shock. You mean we disagree again? Well, lets see, I think you're nuts for being so easily lead. See how easy it is to pursue that line of reasoning?

I'm going to go ahead and start with the tinfoil hat pictures again here soon.

[homersapien 11,362]

Its true because they control their funding and this administration has proven time and time again...either toe their line or face the consequences. Surely you're not going to argue that fact?

You seriously think the scientific community would be of a different opinion were there a republican administration?

I cant honestly say. Im simply saying that there has been numerous articles about pressures within the scientific community not to waiver from the consensus AGW story line. Im not saying this a republican versus democrat issue even though the issue did emerge from the democrat party who has NEVER seen a problem that a tax couldn't fix. Its all about prospective revenues that a carbon tax would generate. I definitely do believe that!

And I think that's nuts.

What?!

You don't think the issue "emerged from the Democratic Party"??

The scientific community just recognized a gravy train when they saw it and jumped on it.