Senate votes to maintain Big Pharma's Monopoly by blocking competitive imports

[Modbert]

U.S. senate votes to maintain big pharma's monopoly by blocking competitive imports

(NaturalNews) The United States Senate recently rejected two separate proposals that would have allowed the importation of cheaper medication from other countries, apparently in order to preserve a deal between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House.

The proposals were part of a wider effort to reform the U.S. healthcare system, in large part by cutting unnecessary costs.

Drug importation was first proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota, in an amendment to the healthcare bill. The amendment would have allowed U.S. wholesale and retail drug distributors, including pharmacies, to import products from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan or New Zealand, where price controls keep drug costs much lower than in the United States. The amendment eventually gained more than 24 sponsors from both major parties.

According to Dorgan and co-sponsor Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and former presidential candidate, drug importation could cut $80 billion off the country's health spending over the next decade.

The United States spends $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A vote on Dorgan's proposal was blocked on December 10 by fellow Democratic Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, who expressed concerns over the safety of imported medications. Like the FDA and the White House, Carper objected that the quality of imported drugs could not be assured.

Other Senators charged that the real motive behind the claim of safety concerns was to preserve a recent deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry, in which the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) agreed to fund $80 billion worth of health care reform by accepting higher taxes and price agreements. According to a number of congressional staffers and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, the deal included a verbal promise by President Obama to not support drug importation.

Liberals in Congress and the White House my ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When are those nasty Republicans going to stop putting their hands out and taking corporate handouts every time the Democrats try to accomplish something good?

 

[Granny]

Don't think it's not already being done. I had a real bad experience recently with some meds I got at Walmart. They had changed suppliers about 3 times on this one particular drug. I moved all my meds to another pharmacy and was telling the pharmacist about my experience and that the drugs had been produced in India. He said there was more medicine being produced in India than most people realize.

US pharmaceutical companies are farming the work out to overseas producers who then ship them right back here where they are housed in huge warehouses and bought by various pharmacies, etc. for distribution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

U.S. senate votes to maintain big pharma's monopoly by blocking competitive imports

(NaturalNews) The United States Senate recently rejected two separate proposals that would have allowed the importation of cheaper medication from other countries, apparently in order to preserve a deal between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House.

The proposals were part of a wider effort to reform the U.S. healthcare system, in large part by cutting unnecessary costs.

Drug importation was first proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota, in an amendment to the healthcare bill. The amendment would have allowed U.S. wholesale and retail drug distributors, including pharmacies, to import products from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan or New Zealand, where price controls keep drug costs much lower than in the United States. The amendment eventually gained more than 24 sponsors from both major parties.

According to Dorgan and co-sponsor Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and former presidential candidate, drug importation could cut $80 billion off the country's health spending over the next decade.

The United States spends $2.5 trillion on health care every year.

A vote on Dorgan's proposal was blocked on December 10 by fellow Democratic Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, who expressed concerns over the safety of imported medications. Like the FDA and the White House, Carper objected that the quality of imported drugs could not be assured.

Other Senators charged that the real motive behind the claim of safety concerns was to preserve a recent deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry, in which the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) agreed to fund $80 billion worth of health care reform by accepting higher taxes and price agreements. According to a number of congressional staffers and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, the deal included a verbal promise by President Obama to not support drug importation.

Liberals in Congress and the White House my ass.

I would love to side with you, but I think there are better ways to bring down the cost of US made drugs in the US, than importing drugs from other countries.

I am not against importing on principle, but the regulatory aspects and safety objections are where I stand as caution is the best policy here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't think it's not already being done. I had a real bad experience recently with some meds I got at Walmart. They had changed suppliers about 3 times on this one particular drug. I moved all my meds to another pharmacy and was telling the pharmacist about my experience and that the drugs had been produced in India. He said there was more medicine being produced in India than most people realize.

US pharmaceutical companies are farming the work out to overseas producers who then ship them right back here where they are housed in huge warehouses and bought by various pharmacies, etc. for distribution.

This is what creeps me out. Farming out labor always ends up being a cost savings issue. When costs are lowered as much as possible, quality takes a hit.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapper.html

Wier had determined to lead Snapper to focus on quality, and through quality, on cachet. Not every car is a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry; there is more than enough business to support Audi and BMW and Lexus. And so it is with lawn mowers, Wier hoped. Still, perhaps the most remarkable thing is that the Wal-Mart effect is so pervasive that it sets the metabolism even of companies that purposefully do no business with Wal-Mart.

And the power and allure of Wal-Mart is such that even Jim Wier, the man who said no to Wal-Mart, a man who knows all the reasons why that was the right decision, has slivers of doubt.

"I could go to my grave, and my tombstone could say, 'Here lies the dumbest CEO ever to live. He chose not to sell to Wal-Mart.' "

As with medical care, I do not think it in the best interests of the American people to view medicine as strictly a commodity, a merchandise equivalent to a car or even---a lawn mower.

 

[Modbert]

I am not against importing on principle, but the regulatory aspects and safety objections are where I stand as caution is the best policy here.

About that:

A separate amendment that would have allowed the importation of drugs specifically approved by the FDA also failed, 56-43.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not against importing on principle, but the regulatory aspects and safety objections are where I stand as caution is the best policy here.

About that:

A separate amendment that would have allowed the importation of drugs specifically approved by the FDA also failed, 56-43.

bad.

a side note: The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart

I know Big Pharma has a strong lobby, but that does not mean they are always on the wrong side when it comes to legislation, where consumers are concerned---though they often are.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am always a little skeptical of anything about "Big Pharma" from "natural news". They have an axe to grind. It sounds like there were some safety concerns and the Senators didn't want to rush through the FDA thing.

We'll see what happens. When it comes to "natural medicine" though, the "Big Pharma" and "politicians in it's back pocket" is a recurring theme that gets old and lame.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why don't we explore the economic world of pharmaceuticals and cheap drug imports a minute, hmmm?

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to government price controls in every industrialized country in the world except for the United States. For years, Americans have enviously eyed cheap drugs in Canada, for example, where strict price controls and a socialized healthcare system allows for the sale of drugs at nearly half the US price.

As we have seen, American Democrats - and others - have pushed to have these price-controlled foreign drugs resold in the US, essentially importing foreign price controls to us as well.

US-based drug companies spend vast amounts to develop new drugs, and Americans pay high prices for them. Once developed, they're reasonably inexpensive to manufacture, and companies are willing to sell abroad at a price that merely covers the cost of manufacturing and distribution.

Meanwhile, America covers the research and development costs through our higher prices. America, which comprises just 5% of the world's population, accounts for 50% of the world's spending on drugs. Basically, we're underwriting the rest of the world and enabling them. Not "fair" (if you spend a lot of time thinking about such things), because most industrialized nations could bear more of their own share of these costs. But if the US drug prices dropped sharply due to reimportation, drug companies would simply stop making so many new drugs. There's no reason to spend on research and development if you're not going to recoup the costs.

Moreover, those drugs that are close to completion will be finished, but those just starting development will be shelved. Thus, it would be years after the beginning of reimportation before new drugs completely stopped being developed. And when it finally became apparent, who would people blame? Not the government price controls. No, they would rush to vilify drug companies for "not doing their job". (Thanks to John Lott)

There are a few other things one should know about the pharmaceutical industry, before anyone starts screaming about "obscene profit margins" and other nonsense:

The average profit margin of the pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 1000 list is 16% (profits as a percent of revenue). This is in line with the profit margins of the banking (13%), diversified financial (11%), tobacco (11%), and real estate (10%) industries (Fortune, 2002) . None of these industries has the need to pour money back into research that the pharmaceutical industry does. The 2002 Fortune 500 Industry Rankings. "How the Fortune 1000 Stack Up In Their Industries." Fortune. April 15, 2002. www.fortune.com/lists/F500/indsnap_41.html

Drug industry returns have remained steady since 1981 at only 2 to 3% above the cost of capital (Little, 2002). "Examining the Relationship Between Pharmaceutical Pricing and Innovation." Published by Arthur D. Little, Inc. on May 10, 2002. Available online at www.galen.org/news/PricingInnovationText.pdf

The pharmaceutical industry's risk-adjusted return is actually lower than other R&D-intensive industries, such as computer network, equipment, and software services (Little, 2002).

The pharmaceutical industry's total tax liability (as a percent of income subject to U.S. tax) is 33.8%, which is slightly higher than for all manufacturing (33.7%) and for all industries (33.5%).

The pharmaceutical industry pays more tax than 97% of all industries. "Taxing the Pharmaceutical Industry" PhRMA Backgrounder. July 17, 2000. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2000-07-17.208.phtml

No other industry - from electronics to telecommunications - commits a higher percentage of sales revenues to new innovation and future advances. Whereas industry on average devotes just 3% of sales and export revenue to R&D, the pharmaceutical industry devotes more than 20%. "The Myth of 'Rising Drug Prices' Exposed." PhRMA Backgrounder. March 6, 2002. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2002-03-06.333.phtml

 

[Modbert]

Why don't we explore the economic world of pharmaceuticals and cheap drug imports a minute, hmmm?

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to government price controls in every industrialized country in the world except for the United States. For years, Americans have enviously eyed cheap drugs in Canada, for example, where strict price controls and a socialized healthcare system allows for the sale of drugs at nearly half the US price.

As we have seen, American Democrats - and others - have pushed to have these price-controlled foreign drugs resold in the US, essentially importing foreign price controls to us as well.

US-based drug companies spend vast amounts to develop new drugs, and Americans pay high prices for them. Once developed, they're reasonably inexpensive to manufacture, and companies are willing to sell abroad at a price that merely covers the cost of manufacturing and distribution.

Meanwhile, America covers the research and development costs through our higher prices. America, which comprises just 5% of the world's population, accounts for 50% of the world's spending on drugs. Basically, we're underwriting the rest of the world and enabling them. Not "fair" (if you spend a lot of time thinking about such things), because most industrialized nations could bear more of their own share of these costs. But if the US drug prices dropped sharply due to reimportation, drug companies would simply stop making so many new drugs. There's no reason to spend on research and development if you're not going to recoup the costs.

Moreover, those drugs that are close to completion will be finished, but those just starting development will be shelved. Thus, it would be years after the beginning of reimportation before new drugs completely stopped being developed. And when it finally became apparent, who would people blame? Not the government price controls. No, they would rush to vilify drug companies for "not doing their job". (Thanks to John Lott)

There are a few other things one should know about the pharmaceutical industry, before anyone starts screaming about "obscene profit margins" and other nonsense:

The average profit margin of the pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 1000 list is 16% (profits as a percent of revenue). This is in line with the profit margins of the banking (13%), diversified financial (11%), tobacco (11%), and real estate (10%) industries (Fortune, 2002) . None of these industries has the need to pour money back into research that the pharmaceutical industry does. The 2002 Fortune 500 Industry Rankings. "How the Fortune 1000 Stack Up In Their Industries." Fortune. April 15, 2002. www.fortune.com/lists/F500/indsnap_41.html

Drug industry returns have remained steady since 1981 at only 2 to 3% above the cost of capital (Little, 2002). "Examining the Relationship Between Pharmaceutical Pricing and Innovation." Published by Arthur D. Little, Inc. on May 10, 2002. Available online at www.galen.org/news/PricingInnovationText.pdf

The pharmaceutical industry's risk-adjusted return is actually lower than other R&D-intensive industries, such as computer network, equipment, and software services (Little, 2002).

The pharmaceutical industry's total tax liability (as a percent of income subject to U.S. tax) is 33.8%, which is slightly higher than for all manufacturing (33.7%) and for all industries (33.5%).

The pharmaceutical industry pays more tax than 97% of all industries. "Taxing the Pharmaceutical Industry" PhRMA Backgrounder. July 17, 2000. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2000-07-17.208.phtml

No other industry - from electronics to telecommunications - commits a higher percentage of sales revenues to new innovation and future advances. Whereas industry on average devotes just 3% of sales and export revenue to R&D, the pharmaceutical industry devotes more than 20%. "The Myth of 'Rising Drug Prices' Exposed." PhRMA Backgrounder. March 6, 2002. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2002-03-06.333.phtml

Mmm, delicious copypasta from 2002.

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jul2002/DrugCompanyProfitsvsResearch.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why don't we explore the economic world of pharmaceuticals and cheap drug imports a minute, hmmm?

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to government price controls in every industrialized country in the world except for the United States. For years, Americans have enviously eyed cheap drugs in Canada, for example, where strict price controls and a socialized healthcare system allows for the sale of drugs at nearly half the US price.

As we have seen, American Democrats - and others - have pushed to have these price-controlled foreign drugs resold in the US, essentially importing foreign price controls to us as well.

US-based drug companies spend vast amounts to develop new drugs, and Americans pay high prices for them. Once developed, they're reasonably inexpensive to manufacture, and companies are willing to sell abroad at a price that merely covers the cost of manufacturing and distribution.

Meanwhile, America covers the research and development costs through our higher prices. America, which comprises just 5% of the world's population, accounts for 50% of the world's spending on drugs. Basically, we're underwriting the rest of the world and enabling them. Not "fair" (if you spend a lot of time thinking about such things), because most industrialized nations could bear more of their own share of these costs. But if the US drug prices dropped sharply due to reimportation, drug companies would simply stop making so many new drugs. There's no reason to spend on research and development if you're not going to recoup the costs.

Moreover, those drugs that are close to completion will be finished, but those just starting development will be shelved. Thus, it would be years after the beginning of reimportation before new drugs completely stopped being developed. And when it finally became apparent, who would people blame? Not the government price controls. No, they would rush to vilify drug companies for "not doing their job". (Thanks to John Lott)

There are a few other things one should know about the pharmaceutical industry, before anyone starts screaming about "obscene profit margins" and other nonsense:

The average profit margin of the pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 1000 list is 16% (profits as a percent of revenue). This is in line with the profit margins of the banking (13%), diversified financial (11%), tobacco (11%), and real estate (10%) industries (Fortune, 2002) . None of these industries has the need to pour money back into research that the pharmaceutical industry does. The 2002 Fortune 500 Industry Rankings. "How the Fortune 1000 Stack Up In Their Industries." Fortune. April 15, 2002. www.fortune.com/lists/F500/indsnap_41.html

Drug industry returns have remained steady since 1981 at only 2 to 3% above the cost of capital (Little, 2002). "Examining the Relationship Between Pharmaceutical Pricing and Innovation." Published by Arthur D. Little, Inc. on May 10, 2002. Available online at www.galen.org/news/PricingInnovationText.pdf

The pharmaceutical industry's risk-adjusted return is actually lower than other R&D-intensive industries, such as computer network, equipment, and software services (Little, 2002).

The pharmaceutical industry's total tax liability (as a percent of income subject to U.S. tax) is 33.8%, which is slightly higher than for all manufacturing (33.7%) and for all industries (33.5%).

The pharmaceutical industry pays more tax than 97% of all industries. "Taxing the Pharmaceutical Industry" PhRMA Backgrounder. July 17, 2000. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2000-07-17.208.phtml

No other industry - from electronics to telecommunications - commits a higher percentage of sales revenues to new innovation and future advances. Whereas industry on average devotes just 3% of sales and export revenue to R&D, the pharmaceutical industry devotes more than 20%. "The Myth of 'Rising Drug Prices' Exposed." PhRMA Backgrounder. March 6, 2002. Available online at www.phrma.org/publications/documents/backgrounders/2002-03-06.333.phtml

Mmm, delicious copypasta from 2002.

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jul2002/DrugCompanyProfitsvsResearch.html

Well, goody for you. You can not only find links when they're given for you, you can repeat the source as though it constitutes a response, thereby avoiding actually giving one. Any day now, you'll be tying your own shoes and crossing the street by yourself.

Call me when you have something real to say. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Modbert]

Well, goody for you. You can not only find links when they're given for you, you can repeat the source as though it constitutes a response, thereby avoiding actually giving one. Any day now, you'll be tying your own shoes and crossing the street by yourself.

Call me when you have something real to say. I won't hold my breath.

If I wanted a bunch of copy and paste stuff from a website in 2002, I would of asked for it.

Point is, you think these companies should charge as much as they want and that they are justified in charging rates to the point that the average American can no longer afford them. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who is not open minded anyway.

Besides, get some new material.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, goody for you. You can not only find links when they're given for you, you can repeat the source as though it constitutes a response, thereby avoiding actually giving one. Any day now, you'll be tying your own shoes and crossing the street by yourself.

Call me when you have something real to say. I won't hold my breath.

If I wanted a bunch of copy and paste stuff from a website in 2002, I would of asked for it.

Point is, you think these companies should charge as much as they want and that they are justified in charging rates to the point that the average American can no longer afford them. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who is not open minded anyway.

Besides, get some new material.

::snore:: "You quoted other people! I win!" This was funny the first time I heard it from people who've never had an original idea in their lives. About the fifty-first time, it got boring.

If you're QUITE done dodging and blowing smoke up my ass - as Dennis Miller says, my sphincter is getting ready to sue Phillip Morris - I'd be fascinated to hear you actually refute anything I've said with something more than "I found the place you quoted (which was cited in your post), so that means it's all crap!" Simply restating your opinion as though I said nothing at all just proves you're afraid to hear anything but your own viewpoint.

Strike two, chickenshit. How about you grow a pair?

 

[Modbert]

::snore:: "You quoted other people! I win!" This was funny the first time I heard it from people who've never had an original idea in their lives. About the fifty-first time, it got boring.

If you're QUITE done dodging and blowing smoke up my ass - as Dennis Miller says, my sphincter is getting ready to sue Phillip Morris - I'd be fascinated to hear you actually refute anything I've said with something more than "I found the place you quoted (which was cited in your post), so that means it's all crap!" Simply restating your opinion as though I said nothing at all just proves you're afraid to hear anything but your own viewpoint.

Strike two, chickenshit. How about you grow a pair?

Is that what this message board is to you? About "winning" and "losing?

I could give two shits what you think. I come here to keep up on current events, get a different view on issues, and discuss said issues. I don't come here to have "wins" and "losses". The fact you come into this with such a mindset is sad to say the least.

Then you make me laugh further when quoting Dennis Miller.

I don't really care what you think either about me since you're batshit insane. We've been through this months ago when the board agreed with me through that poll.

But like I said, get some new material, a lot has changed since 2002. That would be like me quoting material on Wall Street, and other financial areas before Enron, etc.

 

[Si modo]

::snore:: "You quoted other people! I win!" This was funny the first time I heard it from people who've never had an original idea in their lives. About the fifty-first time, it got boring.

If you're QUITE done dodging and blowing smoke up my ass - as Dennis Miller says, my sphincter is getting ready to sue Phillip Morris - I'd be fascinated to hear you actually refute anything I've said with something more than "I found the place you quoted (which was cited in your post), so that means it's all crap!" Simply restating your opinion as though I said nothing at all just proves you're afraid to hear anything but your own viewpoint.

Strike two, chickenshit. How about you grow a pair?

Is that what this message board is to you? About "winning" and "losing?

I could give two shits what you think. I come here to keep up on current events, get a different view on issues, and discuss said issues. I don't come here to have "wins" and "losses". The fact you come into this with such a mindset is sad to say the least.

Then you make me laugh further when quoting Dennis Miller.

I don't really care what you think either about me since you're batshit insane. We've been through this months ago when the board agreed with me through that poll.

But like I said, get some new material, a lot has changed since 2002. That would be like me quoting material on Wall Street, and other financial areas before Enron, etc.

The nobody-likes-you-so-you-can't-have-a-point argument.

LMAO!

Natural News has an opinion against Pharma. Now, THERE'S some shocking, just shocking, news.

 

[Modbert]

The nobody-likes-you-so-you-can't-have-a-point argument.

LMAO!

Natural News has an opinion against Pharma. Now, THERE'S some shocking, just shocking, news.

Except I'm not commenting about what Natural News had to say. I'm commenting about the vote, even with FDA regulation allowed, was turned down.

Also, I'm not trying the nobody likes you argument because there are people who like her. However, I proved she is batshit insane months ago.

 

[Si modo]

The nobody-likes-you-so-you-can't-have-a-point argument.

LMAO!

Natural News has an opinion against Pharma. Now, THERE'S some shocking, just shocking, news.

Except I'm not commenting about what Natural News had to say. I'm commenting about the vote, even with FDA regulation allowed, was turned down.

Also, I'm not trying the nobody likes you argument because there are people who like her. However, I proved she is batshit insane months ago.

YOU posted an 'article' from Natural News, no one else.

You 'proved' a poster is insane by doing a poll on USMB?????

Damn, just damn. You're giving truthmatters and JenyE a run for their money in the moron-watching entertainment.

 

[Modbert]

YOU posted an 'article' from Natural News, no one else.

You 'proved' a poster is insane by doing a poll on USMB?????

Damn, just damn. You're giving truthmatters and JenyE a run for their money in the moron-watching entertainment.

Yes I did, I came across this article and posted it as such. I don't see why you have to go after the source when I think the main complaint from this article is the vote that took place. Unless you think that somehow the article is lying about the vote.

Also, I showed that Cecilie was out of her mind when she said and I quote:

"Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed.html

And of course:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/86692-same-sex-marriage-24.html#post1585246

Nice try, but no. Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.

And there's no "conspiracy theory" involved, dumbass. Just common sense and logic. The only "wacked conspiracy theorist" here is you, leaping to "government ploy" when I said exactly two things about the government: jack and shit. I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?

What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda. All it takes is the willingness to pull your head out of your ass - which I assume is where the entire exercise lost you - and read the relevant documents.



http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/...1985report.pdf

WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986

It's funny you mention JenyE, considering when she was posting at first I said she was out of her mind too. You didn't listen to me, and then later you realized it for yourself.

 

[Si modo]

YOU posted an 'article' from Natural News, no one else.

You 'proved' a poster is insane by doing a poll on USMB?????

Damn, just damn. You're giving truthmatters and JenyE a run for their money in the moron-watching entertainment.

Yes I did, I came across this article and posted it as such. I don't see why you have to go after the source when I think the main complaint from this article is the vote that took place. Unless you think that somehow the article is lying about the vote.

Also, I showed that Cecilie was out of her mind when she said and I quote:

"Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed.html

And of course:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/86692-same-sex-marriage-24.html#post1585246

Nice try, but no. Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.

And there's no "conspiracy theory" involved, dumbass. Just common sense and logic. The only "wacked conspiracy theorist" here is you, leaping to "government ploy" when I said exactly two things about the government: jack and shit. I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?

What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda. All it takes is the willingness to pull your head out of your ass - which I assume is where the entire exercise lost you - and read the relevant documents.



http://www.who.int/hiv/strategic/en/...1985report.pdf

WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986

It's funny you mention JenyE, considering when she was posting at first I said she was out of her mind too. You didn't listen to me, and then later you realized it for yourself.

Two points that you cannot grasp (the sooner you take a critical thinking course, the sooner I will be off your back for your lack of it):

1. No poll on USMB proves a thing about a poster, as you claimed it did.

2. Even IF it did, it is irrelevant to the material that poster posted.

Those are points relevant to the insignificance of any point you are trying to make.

This almost always annoys you. Perhaps if you knew a bit about actual critical thought and actually demonstrated it from time to time, it wouldn't annoy you so much.




Now, on the subject matter (and someone has already brought it up, but you dodged that as well), even for FDA approved medications, often foreign manufacturing of those meds does not comply with American GMP.

And, finally, about JenyE. IF I did as you said, it shows that MY mind is open about others. I rely on MY experiences to judge, not another's.

 

[geauxtohell]

Is that what this message board is to you? About "winning" and "losing?

Believe it or not, in this day and age, there are still people, adults even, who think that an argument can be won or lost on an internet message board.