101–110 of 134 posts
what's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit of fear and suddenly we're supposed to trust their studies and superbowl commercials.
Since the vast majority of medicine produced isn't like this situation how do they have bad track record. Also each company is independent.
> Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years The real problem is that they get a slap on the wrist from the regulator and the business continues as usual.
Remember: GSK didn't make an unethical decision, people did. Letting those people hide behind a corporation means that workers and shareholders pay the consequences for decisions that were only made by a few people.
I was telling a friend how unfortunate it is that I live in the south and kept a bottle of this in my car for over a year. I have pretty bad heartburn issues and used to take it only on occasion. Maybe I'll get $35 from a settlement to go with my cancer one day.
Just as a heads up from a professional semi-chemist: dont ingest anything thats been at car temperatures. Its hot enough to chemically alter things, activate diffusions, speed bacterial growth, etc. Its not hot enough to sterilize what you're ingesting.
I was telling a friend how unfortunate it is that I live in the south and kept a bottle of this in my car for over a year. I have pretty bad heartburn issues and used to take it only on occasion. Maybe I'll get $35 from a settlement to go with my cancer one day.
Interestingly, all the Southern grannies knew this: they distrusted ice and made their tea with a pinch of baking soda, although this does change the flavor a bit.
And of course, in the US, none of these people will be brought to justice.
You realize GSK is a UK pharma company... right?
GSK didn't make decisions, people made decisions, and those people need to be named and held responsible. Putting this on GSK means that the people who knowingly sold a cancer-causing drug while hiding the risks get away without any consequences. Given this went on for 40 years, probably a lot of those people are retired, and won't even lose pay, bonuses, share price, etc. Meanwhile, assuming this leads to any sort o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would gladly refrigerate it if it meant I could still use it. I've never had another acid reducer that works as well for me as Zantac. I have so many major health problems that quite frankly I'll probably be dead before I could get cancer from this stuff.
It's still manufactured overseas. There are shady-but-legit websites that sell it. Nothing else on the market compares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a heads up from a professional semi-chemist: dont ingest anything thats been at car temperatures. Its hot enough to chemically alter things, activate diffusions, speed bacterial growth, etc. Its not hot enough to sterilize what you're ingesting.
What would be your advice for someone who lives in a van and can't reasonably store their medications elsewhere?
Its not ideal but even just keeping them in a small drink ice chest in a shaded/insulated area and keeping the van ventilated will help keep temps down.
GSK didn't make decisions, people made decisions, and those people need to be named and held responsible. Putting this on GSK means that the people who knowingly sold a cancer-causing drug while hiding the risks get away without any consequences. Given this went on for 40 years, probably a lot of those people are retired, and won't even lose pay, bonuses, share price, etc. Meanwhile, assuming this leads to any sort o…
Occasionally dissolving anti-social corporations, instead of preserving jobs and protecting shareholders, would probably give remaining corporations at least a little incentive to keep their activities aligned with the goals of wider society.
> Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years The real problem is that they get a slap on the wrist from the regulator and the business continues as usual.
The people who made the actual decision may even be retired, and won't even get a slap on the wrist. Remember: GSK didn't make an unethical decision, people did. Letting those people hide behind a corporation means that workers and shareholders pay the consequences for decisions that were only made by a few people.