They cheated for Oxycontin... Why wouldn't they do it for the covid injectables?

@samueltyler2 This guy is still obsessed with Covid.

@JimboSaturn more so he has bought into a world wide conspiracy.

@JimboSaturn You are rude, if you are referring to the author of the post as " this guy". Insolent person, lacking in manners. Over and out.

@samueltyler2 Good luck with your [i]nth[/i] booster. It's all good money for them.

By the way, what's your problem here? Are you preferring the LIE (Purdue was innocent of all wrongdoing) to the TRUTH (they pushed their killer drug to the max for profits, tough for the lives they destroyed)?

Or, maybe, are you insisting that Big Pharma has become so righteous overnight that they would never risk harming a fly with their trillion-dollar generating universally forced " vaccines" for a "pandemic" that was already downgraded from pandemic status in early 2020?

Either way, you're backed into a corner with the FACTS of this post

@samueltyler2 Actually the cheating in the post was done by the advertising agency (quite apart from Purdue’s dirty dealings). They advertised the drug as "safe an effective", etc, when it clearly wasn't.

@WalterF you like to attack people for the wrong reason, always falling back on your obsession with COVID. Do you have any idea what Purdue did with oxycontin? What they did was unconscionable and they are going to be paying lots, not enough as far as I am concerned, for their misdeeds. But, they were not alone in the disaster regarding pain management.

I won't bother you with the facts, since you never listened in the past.

@WalterF that really isn't cheating, and some of the fault lies in the misunderstanding of the action of the meds, but the errors of physician prescribing continues today, unrelated to Purdue. Although i don't like to blame the victims, but a lot of the problem was and still is from patients demanding medication, demanding to be pain free. So often a physician still gives a prescription for 10 days of therapy, when 1-2 would probably suffice. The patient though, doesn't want to go back to get more meds.

@samueltyler2 What is "the wrong reason", here?

Where is the "do no harm" rule - which my Master II students (Clinical Research and PV) quoted to me recently? Ignored by Purdue. To hell with good morals, if they can be replaced with big profits!

As to not "having any idea" about what they did: it's difficult to have no idea if you've watched "Dopesick" in its disgusting entirety.

So is pain relief the only area in which big pharma forces profits, with little regard for the consequences on individuals?

@WalterF you are once again going off the subject and broadening your argument without facts. As to the Purdue problem, they profited by a concatenation of events, and a misunderstanding of acute verses chronic use, and use of opioids in the management of pain in terminal illness verses short term of events, this led to the overuse of all opioids, not just theirs.

No, the abuse of the power of Pharma is widespread. The profit margins are out of sight, but, that is what capitalism is about. When we talk about price controls you scream socialism. Several meds which were genetic and available for pennies found a way to become proprietary, with a resultant increase in cost that exceeded 100 fold at times.

If you believe only what you saw in Dope sick, you are more foolish than I thought. That is based on facts, but hardly played the full truth.

@samueltyler2 You'd better stop wasting your time on someone who you already thought was foolish, but who has turned out even more foolish than you had thought.

@WalterF i have no idea what you are saying. I am worried that you may be teaching students incorrectly.

@samueltyler2 At the Sorbonne, as in any learning establishment in France, it is forbidden to broach "delicate" subjects, such as religion or politics, other than in disciplines where these are directly concerned. So I in no way try to influence them against their presentt and future employers. You don't need to lose sleep over these students.

I was merely saying that you appear to consider me "more foolish" than you originally thought (your words), so I wonder why you are persisting. If it's because of your fear for my students, I hope I have set your mind at rest.

@WalterF yes, you have. But, it would be nice if you learned a little more about drug development and pharmaceutical PR ving. It may be very different in the US. I sit on a drug utilization board band we struggle with the escalating cost of medications in the US.

@samueltyler2 My first "love" in the pharmaceutical field was drug production. A few years back I was assistant translator for a 5-day FDA inspection at Guerlain, Chartres. This implies, believe it or not, a certain knowledge of the processes through which a medicinal product must go during its "career".

It was very interesting recently to read the FDA's list of observations following an inspection of one of the production sites of one of the covid vaccines. I can forward it to you if you like. But totally unsurprising. - There is absolutely no way that scale-up to the necessary level of production could have been safely and efficiently achieved. In the meantime, it was the receivers of the vaccines who bore the consequences of potential errors, all the while strongly encouraged from all sides to GET THEIR JABS, first, second, third, fourth, then flu/covid together... poor pinpricked bodies! The lucky ones got away with no life-changing AEs. Those who didn’t? Too bad; the vaccine producers all had total immunity.

Do no harm; but if you do somehow do harm, just shrug your shoulders and walk away. Your conscience has been cauterised - why should you care? As long as the salaries are vast and the shareholders are happy...

@WalterF why do you need to attack me. I take my role very seriously. You start out sounding academic, then go too far to the right. I was involved on both sides of new drug development. I have no experience in the actual production of the meds, aside for a couple of visits to productive n plants, one antibiotics, one to baby formula. My daughter is also a reviewer in the FDA. As a reviewer for new drugs in my state, interview data carefully.

I would like to see the report.

@samueltyler2 I was by no means attacking you. My grudge is with the big companies which, in their (legitimate) drive to make profits, can fall prey to corruption and lack of real care for those who will take their products.

I will send you the report(s) later today.

@WalterF Thanks for the report of the one inspection. I am really not surprised, a bit upset, yes, but not surprised. Remember a few years ago people were injured from a poorly controlled "manufacturer" of a preparation used for epidural anesthesia. Very frightening. That fear was always in my mind whenever I prescribed any medication, what is the risk:benefit of the medication? People demanding medication should understand there is always a risk.

@samueltyler2 It is clearly well within the rights of any patient, whether before surgery or before taking on a treatment for a condition, to have his physician explain the risks - leading to his informed consent. This certainly seems to happen consistently before surgery.

But the whole notion of informed consent went out the window with the waves of covid vaccination. Their Emergency Use status (apparently reserved for the use of products for protection in the context of hostile military threats, if I'm not mistaken) permitted the cutting of many corners in research, trialling and production, and put the public under tremendous pressure to comply, without being given the chance to say "Yes, maybe, but..." or more directly "Thanks but no thanks". Those who hesitated or refused were turned on by governments and the media and accused of potentially "killing granny" and possibly even of being domestic terrorists!

So many ways in which the whole operation ran railroad over established practice, common sense and respect for the fellow man.

@WalterF I can tell you that we obtained informed consent from those attending the clinics I worked at. No one was forced to take the vaccine. You might imply that if it was required for a job, that was a coerced consent, but, on the other hand, the job was not a mandatory thing. I disagree that corners were cut. There was more pre-release trials of the vaccine than with virtually any other medication i can think of. Usually a medication is subjected to maybe a few hundred subjects, even a thousand. these mRNA vaccines were tested on many more.

The post vaccine follow-up was far better than with any other preparation. I was very upset when some vaccine sites refused to posed information about the pro-active CDC surveillance program. I still get texts from CDC asking me about my health! That is why I get so upset when there are statements made about how many deaths, and serious side effects occurred. That data does not exist. When you look at population studies, it is clear that in areas with higher immunization rates, the rate of death from all causes dropped.

@samueltyler2 No informed consent here in the UK. My wife took the first two shots before stopping, so she told me how it was done. You go into the room, they inject you, you sit still for 15 minutes there, to check you're ok, then you leave. Summarily done.

The need for people to administer these millions of jabs led to the recruitment of non-professionals, who were given a few hours' training and sent into the fray. The principle of aspiration before injecting, to check that you're not inserting the liquid into a vein, was haphasardly applied.

I can't agree with you that no corners were cut! Just some simple pointers:

- how long does it normally take to prepare a vaccine? Weeks? Months? 100 days? I don't think so. Especially with a new technology that had previously been used very sparingly, and was now to be applied to all-comers worldwide!

- what population was used for testing purposes? Humans, or mice?

- how on earth could they hammer the "safe and effective" message, when they had absolutely no idea what these mRNA substances would to to pregnant women and their babies? Or to people already taking medicines for other conditions? - Where were the studies proving that there would be no nefarious consequences from mixing potent treatments? Answer: there weren't any! - there was no time to do such trials! So how could they possibly sell their products as universally safe and effective?

- it was declared that the lipid nanoparticles would stay at the injection site. However, in many cases, these seem to have travelled throughout the body, coming under attack from the immune system and potentially provoking crises in many organs

- the whole approach to this "pandemic" that was rapidly downgraded to a lesser threat status even before the vaccine rollout represented a complete rejection of the well-planned years-long pandemic response that had been thrashed out by scientists, certainly in the UK, based on experience of past pandemics, going back to Spanish flu and maybe further. It was a sensible plan. But it didn't require mass vaccination, even down to children, for a disease that threatened the elderly. It didn't require masking, tne closing-down of society, including, most regrettably, schools.

Nothing in this whole worldwide mechanism followed rational rules.

@WalterF I could go one by one into your comments, some are correct, most aren't. For example, I was raised with the need to aspirate before injecting, i was upset when I didn't see that happening. I was referred to the recent literature showing it isn't needed and may actually make things worse. As to time to develop, the backbone for the mRNA vaccines was worked on in the 1990s. There has been lots of talk about switching to it way before the pandemic, to prepare for a pandemic. In 2010 we almost made the switch. It takes too long to develop the yearly flu bc vaccine, and it is an educated guess as to which strains to include. When COVID hit, the ability to rapidly move to the new technology was ready.

The change in terminology is really irrelevant. In the US S there are still over 1,000 covid-related deaths a week, and we are learning more about the long term effects of COVID on various organ systems, most frightening already is the effect on the brain and heart. I am speaking of wild COVID infection!

@samueltyler2 No need to try to reply to all my comments. There is no justifiable excuse for the globally parroted "safe and effective" slogan; the only explanation is gross malpractice, by governments, health leaders, and the industry, all in collusion. The term "lying" comes to mind.

But no need to pursue this. You have your opinion; I have mine.

@WalterF as long as you call it that, your opinion, and don't call it facts! Look at the trajectory of the deaths and what slowed it down to an almost comparative trickle.

@samueltyler2 I gave the facts in my previous comment (the one on cut corners, with simple bullet points).

These facts lead to a conclusion, in other words, an opinion. Mine is of malpractice, of criminal proportions.

I don't want to open the question of covid deaths and vaccine deaths, because all the negative data on those are hidden from the view of the googler, and the media follower. It's so upsetting that the work and conclusions of so many highly qualified scientists has been completely ignored and "cancelled," just because they - legitimately - challenged The Narrative.

This one-sided approach makes a total mockery of the whole concept of science. "The science is settled" - really?

So I will not be discussing deaths.

@WalterF I find myself needing to counter some of your comments. There is no doubt among scientists that there was an emergence of a novel virus, the COVID-19 virus. There is uniform consensus that it caused many millions of deaths worldwide. There is also consensus that the rapid development of a vaccine saved many millions of more lives. There is increasing evidence of the long-term effects of the virus on the brains and hearts of effected individuals. The data on children is becoming more and more obvious, over 10% of children who were hospitalized because of their covid infections now have been found to have structural brain injuries. You may not agree, and I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, you just are outside of the opinion of the vast majority of scientists involved in the pandemic.