Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Zedder]

No, it's succinctly relevant in describing a commercial entity though. Which is what I was doing.

And I didn't suggest Cancer NZ wasn't either a npo or a research company.

You really are having trouble with comprehension aincha?

Maybe in your mind but not in the real world.

Nah, just having trouble with how you wrote that the tax exemption critera was wrong even though it does apply to my example of the Cancer Society as a non profit, charitable, research company.

[Ocean1]

Maybe in your mind but not in the real world.

Nah, just having trouble with how you wrote that the tax exemption critera was wrong even though it does apply to my example of the Cancer Society as a non profit, charitable, research company.

You have yet to offer a coherent rebuttal.

As I did in pointing out that tax criteria has nothing to do with an entity's status as commercial, or otherwise.

So you're batting zero for two.

[Zedder]

You have yet to offer a coherent rebuttal.

As I did in pointing out that tax criteria has nothing to do with an entity's status as commercial, or otherwise.

So you're batting zero for two.

Rubbish, you've put the typical Ocean1 "School of Business" spin on it.

[Katman]

Bearing in mind that mitochrondria play an important role in maintaining the integrity of the blood/brain barrier, and that Polysorbate 80 is used to transport certain compounds across the blood/brain barrier (as well as being an ingredient in some vaccines), I found this article interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179978/

[Virago]

[husaberg]

And therein lies the problem.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

[Katman]

So that's a no then. The reason I asked the question, was to categorise the likelihood of additional test trials you seem to be asking for, as fuck all benefit, like a microscope examination would be of steering head bearings for a wof.

You seem to think that once a pharmaceutical product is approved for the market, no further testing or scrutiny should be needed.

On the contrary, as new testing methods are perfected or advanced equipment is developed, even existing products should be subject to constant re-analysing and re-evaluating to ensure that nothing was missed in earlier trials.

That's how improvements are made.

It also shows a willingness to put concern for people's health and well-being ahead of profits.

[bogan]

You seem to think that once a pharmaceutical product is approved for the market, no further testing or scrutiny should be needed.

On the contrary, as new testing methods are perfected or advanced equipment is developed, even existing products should be subject to constant re-analysing and re-evaluating to ensure that nothing was missed in earlier trials.

That's how improvements are made.

It also shows a willingness to put concern for people's health and well-being ahead of profits.

Not at all, I've mentioned numerous times that ongoing testing is essential, and that vaccines should be continually evaluated and improved based on new research. The point TDL, husaberg, and myself are making is that to continue test trials and otherwise over-test existing product is to waste the time that would be far better spent doing that new research, to thus improve the vaccines...

[Katman]

The point TDL, husaberg, and myself are making is that to continue test trials and otherwise over-test existing product is to waste the time that would be far better spent doing that new research, to thus improve the vaccines...

What makes you think you're qualified to determine what constitutes 'over-testing' of existing products?

[Virago]

What makes you think you're qualified to determine what constitutes 'over-testing' of existing products?

What makes you think you're qualified to determine what constitutes under-testing of existing products?

[Katman]

What makes you think you're qualified to determine what constitutes under-testing of existing products?

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

But if people in the field of medical research feel it is worthwhile conducting further tests on a product, they should be free to do so - without having the pharmaceutical industry threatening to withdraw funding from their institute if they go ahead with that testing.

[bogan]

What makes you think you're qualified to determine what constitutes 'over-testing' of existing products?

What makes you think I think I am? I rely on the scientist's determination that the current testing methods do not constitute over, or under testing; this is why I haven't called for any changes.

[Katman]

Here you go, have a watch of this.



Now I haven't watched it yet (I'm about to start), so I can't be accused of pushing something that 'fits my agenda' - I don't know what is in the presentation.

[Katman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/bu...call.html?_r=0

[Katman]

Seriously, instead of ignoring the link above, some of you should take a read of how pharmaceutical giants handle adverse claims about their products.

After repeatedly rubbishing any claims that Vioxx presented a significant health risk, Merck ended up paying out almost 5 billion dollars in fines and lawsuits.

Now handing over 5 billion dollars would normally spell the end of any business - but not Merck. They were back showing obscene profits within a couple of years.