“Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,”...
Is it just me or does this kind of attitude make you say "F* YOU Wall Street".
Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
31–40 of 145 posts
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#32> “All the big pharmas have lawsuits,” the analyst concluded, sipping an espresso. “It’s just not a big deal.” A list of the $13B in fines paid by pharma companies just in 2009 to 2014: http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma
Is that why they ask for strong patent law? So they can use those profits to pay for fines because of their recklessness?
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice. Nope, they really don't. The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make…
I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.
That's just petty. Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away. So, no, that is silly and helps nobody. If you're going to do that just go full hog and fine people, at least it doesn't feel like petty revenge.
Ultimately it is the fact that vaccines AREN'T required that forces the government to spend the time, resources, and effort promoting vaccines. Without that they can just arbitrarily start demanding we inject things and outright reject all requests for information/data/etc.
We are actually in a good-ish place. Most of the population is vaccinated, there's plenty of data on vaccinations available to the public, and many of the concerns have been debunked using good solid science which cannot easily be refuted.
Essentially the forced-vaccination people are arguing for worse science, they just haven't figured that out yet because they aren't looking far enough into the future. If they are forced, what is the justification for the science? Or are you just going to rely on other countries where it isn't mandated for the science (in particular follow up studies)?
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#34My mother was a pharmaceutical sales rep for many years where she did rather well despite her age most likely because she was previously a RN. I say age because the pharma companies blatantly hire "sexy and young" to sell to doctors. Now I'm sure there are other companies that age and appearance discriminate but the pharma companies are especially egregious in that they really don't care if the sales person is qualif…
>doctors rarely have time to do research on the samples that they were given.
Maybe back in the old days, but now with instant journal access, instant press access, etc its really not an excuse.
Self-compliance and regualtion isn't all that terrible especially when the alternative is underfunded and politically controlled organizations like the FDA. We like to believe in this myth that they're above the fray when it comes to commercial and political interests, but that's just not true. The FDA has no shortage of whistleblowers.
This attitude of "OMG IF ITS NOT 100% SOCIALIZED ITS SHIT" is extremely questionable. I don't know why its taken up uncritically on internet forums. One of the nice things of US society is that we have a more sophisticated idea of public/private partnerships which leads to interesting outcomes. This builds a lot of flexibility, creates investor confidence, and is just better business. For example, why are all these miracle drugs from the US and not from, say, Greece? Its clear there are many, many advantages to the US system. Silicon valley wouldn't have existed in a high regulatory environment, yet here you are on a forum dedicated to technology startups largely centered in that area and derived from that culture.
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…
How about "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving yourself unvaccinated", by analogy to "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by selling tained food" or "Thou shalt not spread deadly diseases by leaving your hair out when you're working in a restaurant's kitchen"?
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…
The primary purpose of the state, (unite states) is the protection of peoples liberty and property.
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#37Huh, and I already disliked the (loose) association with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which aims for prohibition to return in the United States.
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…
Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…
> Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice.
Except that it's not your body.
If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people.
Vaccination needs to be mandatory, and if the state has to send agents to burst into people's homes, tie people down, and forcibly administer the vaccinations, then I'm all for it.
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.
That's just petty. Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away. So, no, that is silly and helps nobody. If you're going to do that just go full hog and fine people, at least it doesn't feel like petty revenge. Ultimately it is the fact that vaccines AREN'T required that forces the government to spend the time, resources, and effort promoting vaccines. Without that they ca…
> That's just petty.
As the parent of twins born the day before the third trimester, I assure you my motivations here are not petty.
> Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away.
Negligent homicide is punishable both civilly and criminally in most other situations. Why not in refusing to be vaccinated?
> We are actually in a good-ish place. Most of the population is vaccinated, there's plenty of data on vaccinations available to the public, and many of the concerns have been debunked using good solid science which cannot easily be refuted.
And we're finding that a certain percentage of the population is immune to scientific refutation. They're not going away, and they're causing some areas to drop below herd immunity levels. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/27/ca...
Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
#40The tragedy here goes far beyond the direct damage to the patents who were prescribed this vile stuff off-label. There's also the collateral damage to the medical establishment that supports this -- can anyone argue that the anti-vaxxers don't have a point when they're on about exactly this sort of profit-driven evil from Big Pharma? I myself am an anti-anti-vaxxer (a pro-vaxxer?) who actually supports state-mandated…
I would guess that most of the anti and pro-vaxers are not scientifically trained, were not involved in the development or testing of these vaccines, probably have not read any of the original reports, don't know what influences could have effected those reports and are basically regurgitating info they saw on TV or the internet.
I've heard both sides of the vaccine argument and they both have points.