Mr. Asthma

Question:

> Just how would you know?

I did not write that conspiracy nonsense.  I suggest you direct your question to the author, who’s attempting to provide asthma advice.      Just before America entered the the 2nd WW the      American Government knew of the impending      Japanese Attack at Pearl Harbour – The Japanese      codes had already been broken.      The American Government ordered it’s most      advanced technology – aircraft carriers – based      in Pearl harbour out to sea.  Leaving the      Battleships (old technology) and their crew      behind as bait.      Moral of the Story: The 5000 people in the      world trade centre were merely sacrificial lambs.      For the US government to deny any knowledge of      the impending attack is a bold faced lie.  The      Sep 11 attack had to happen because America      wanted it to happen. // "You have to get it straight 8f3 in your own mind. Once you have it straight in your own min 8fd d, you have to assume that the reader knows nothing but the English language. As soon as you think that a kid knows w cc3 hat a quantum is merely because you know, you have lost him." Isaac Asimov

Response:

> No, he’ll just Google-Mouseketeer you to death…

It must be terrible for you to have such low esteem that you think your words are ‘Mickey Mouse’.  But then spammers care only about $$$ and don’t want people to know the spam and asthma useless text they’ve written. // "As you strive to continually figure out how to chemically manipulate symptoms and disease, I will manipulate the spine and offer preventive health options, or "snake oil" as you call it" R.S.B. // "Hope deceives more men than cunning does." Luc de Clapiers

Response:

>> If you cannot tell the difference between legitimate profit form > operations and accounting fraud, then you do not have any business > commenting.

I agree with the statement but many people do not know the difference. In fact I would say the majority of people would not know the difference unless it was explained to them.

Response:

>For the US government to deny any knowledge of the impending attack is >a bold faced lie.

Just how would you know?

Response:

    Well, I suppose that would be better than being retreaded a 3rd time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Colin works for the United States Army.  And you seem to have a >> problem with Americans and shilling; get over it. > And what if I don’t…..you send in the Marines? > No, he’ll just Google-Mouseketeer you to death…

Response:

>> Colin works for the United States Army.  And you seem to have a > problem with Americans and shilling; get over it. >And what if I don’t…..you send in the Marines?

No, he’ll just Google-Mouseketeer you to death…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They should be > allowed to advertise but they should be held to very high standards for > truthfulness, both lies of omission and commission, to a much greater degree > than they are now. > Not possible. > You cannot hold them to "lies of omission," only commission.  (The only > exception I can think of is basic safety, and the ads already state side > effects and contraindications.) > One big change that occurred in recent decades, was the advertising of > brand-name prescription drugs directly to the public.  There may be > cheaper generic drugs that will work just as well.  Should the ads be > required to reveal that????

Yes. If they want to say – "these symptoms may be from xxx, go see your doctor" then that is fine. If they want to say that Nexium will cure their heartburn they should have to say that there are many other drugs, including inexpensive generics, that may do just as well. > Since there are an infinite number of things an advertisement doesn’t > say, and there’s only a 60-second time frame to do the commercial in, > you’re treading on thin First Amendment ice here.

That’s fine by me. Really, if I had my way they wouldn’t be allowed to mention any specific prescription product. I think there is reason to make a distinction. According to he American system it is granted that only a doctor can make a decision about exactly what drug is best in a given situation. Therefore advertising to doctors (supposedly the person making the choice) make sense. Since the consumer is not free to decide which medication is best for them it makes no sense to allow advertisements to them. This is obviously a ploy to make an end run around the current prescribing system. If the first amendment won’t allow the banning of all these ads altogether then I don’t see any reason not to strictly regulate them. The FDA already limits what the reps can say to the docs (can’t promote off label uses) so there is precedent for this sort of regulation. — CBI, MD

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "No wonder some people on the planet think Americans are crazy." > Marcus Hausen > Just before America entered the the 2nd WW the American Government > knew of the impending Japanese Attack at Pearl Harbour – The Japanese > codes had already been broken. > The American Government ordered it’s most advanced technology – > aircraft carriers – based  in Pearl harbour out to sea.  Leaving the > Battleships (old technology) and their crew behind as bait. > Moral of the Story: The 5000 people in the world trade centre were > merely sacrificial lambs. > For the US government to deny any knowledge of the impending attack is > a bold faced lie.  The Sep 11 attack had to happen because America > wanted it to happen. > Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron? > Colin works for the United States Army.  And you seem to have a > problem with Americans and shilling; get over it.

And what if I don’t…..you send in the Marines? Regards Mark

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> . >> BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to >> consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. > Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron? > That’s what is meant by the term "ad hominem."

Ad hominem, profectus…. It’s all greek to me! Regards Mark

Response:

> >> BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to >> consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. >Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron? > If you cannot tell the difference between legitimate profit form > operations and accounting fraud, then you do not have any business > commenting.

Fortunatly, I have just had a crash course…. Thanks Larry! Regards Mark

Response:

"No wonder some people on the planet think Americans are crazy." Marcus Hausen Just before America entered the the 2nd WW the American Government knew of the impending Japanese Attack at Pearl Harbour – The Japanese codes had already been broken. The American Government ordered it’s most advanced technology – aircraft carriers – based  in Pearl harbour out to sea.  Leaving the Battleships (old technology) and their crew behind as bait. Moral of the Story: The 5000 people in the world trade centre were merely sacrificial lambs. For the US government to deny any knowledge of the impending attack is a bold faced lie.  The Sep 11 attack had to happen because America wanted it to happen. > Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron?

Colin works for the United States Army.  And you seem to have a problem with Americans and shilling; get over it. > Se

ffb e Attached: Posted on Fri, Jul. 19, 2002   Permits ordered on ffb outdoor sales Karen and Randy Markum, owners of Burleson Chiropractic Center, welcomed the expanded ordinance, s ffb aying it might cut down on sellers pitching fruit, satellite systems, magazine subscriptions and lots of other items. "There’s a pretty wide range of what people are selling," Karen Markum said. "You don’t know the quality of the product; you don’t know if what they’re selling is legitimate. You always have that concern." Insurance Industry Antitrust Newsletter February 2002 Wisconsin Chiropractic Group Settles State AG Antitrust Action. In late December, the Wisconsin Chiropractic Association announced that it had agreed to pay $62,500 to settle an antitrust action brought against it by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office. The state had alleged that the WCA and its director had conspired to increase prices paid by insurers for chiropractic services in the state and boycotted insurers that refused to increase their fees. The state and the FTC had jointly investigated the Association’s practices after receiving complaints from several insurers. http://sun1.unl.edu/~swi/pers/brock.html Ken Brockman was a chiropractor in Iowa before two children and a teenager died while in his care. Iowa revoked his chiropractor’s license and convicted him of practicing medicine illegally. He moved to Nebraska in 1984. Brockman set up shop as a nutrition consultant. … They would pick on people that maybe weren’t real sophisticated investors, people that believed in nutrition … Even after more than 10 years of empty promises, even after a jury convicted him of seven counts of mail fraud, many of his investors still believed in Ken Brockman’s crusade for good nutrition and alternative medicine. … The judge was not impressed telling him "it’s a scam, you’re lying to people, you need to go to prison." In handcuffs and leg irons, a 350-pound man who made millions claiming he had a way to give people the perfect body, could barely fit into the U.S. Marshal’s van. // "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you," wrote George Bernard Shaw.  "Their tastes may be different," And that’s just the beginning…. Adam-Troy Castro

Response:

>> . > BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to > consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. > Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron?

That’s what is meant by the term "ad hominem." There is nothing evil about turning a profit. When the neighbor boy mows your lawn and you pay him for it, he has turned a profit. When you buy your popsicle at curbside the Good Humor man has turned a profit; if he buys a second truck, and hires someone else to drive it, he has not become evil in doing so. Turning a profit is at the base of all business transactions. The aspect that is distasteful, and unacceptable, is turning a *dishonest* profit. Colin did not say criminals are amusing, he does not feel they are amusing, and you very well know it – or don’t you?     Larry

Response:

>> BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to > consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. >Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron?

If you cannot tell the difference between legitimate profit form operations and accounting fraud, then you do not have any business commenting. "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

Response:

>That’s what is meant by the term "ad hominem." There is nothing evil about >turning a profit. When the neighbor boy mows your lawn and you pay him for >it, he has turned a profit. When you buy your popsicle at curbside the Good >Humor man has turned a profit; if he buys a second truck, and hires someone >else to drive it, he has not become evil in doing so. Turning a profit is at >the base of all business transactions. The aspect that is distasteful, and >unacceptable, is turning a *dishonest* profit. Colin did not say criminals >are amusing, he does not feel they are amusing, and you very well know it – >or don’t you?

He probably does not care about the difference. "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

Response:

>The New York Times reported on Friday that the FDA and the Justice >Department >were conducting a criminal investigation tied to a lawsuit against J&J filed >by >a former boiler operator at the plant named Hector Arce. The report said the >worker was fired in March 1999.

Fired employees can really be a pain in the Arce.

Response:

> They should be > allowed to advertise but they should be held to very high standards for > truthfulness, both lies of omission and commission, to a much greater degree > than they are now.

Not possible. You cannot hold them to "lies of omission," only commission.  (The only exception I can think of is basic safety, and the ads already state side effects and contraindications.)   One big change that occurred in recent decades, was the advertising of brand-name prescription drugs directly to the public.  There may be cheaper generic drugs that will work just as well.  Should the ads be required to reveal that???? Also, the pharma companies sometimes repackage the same drug with a new name and a new purpose, but don’t mention that.  For example, I was amused when they repackaged Prozac (the antidepressant fluoxetine) and marketed it for pre-menstrual tension/syndrome.  They gave it a new feminine-sounding name ("SaraFem").   Yet it’s the same drug.  (The ad displays the word "fluoxetine" but they know many consumers won’t know that’s Prozac.)  Should the ads be required to reveal that???? Since there are an infinite number of things an advertisement doesn’t say, and there’s only a 60-second time frame to do the commercial in, you’re treading on thin First Amendment ice here. — Steven D. Litvintchouk                  

Response:

>>Did you catch the item in the report where the actual numbers came >Marketing, advertising and administration? >But after that only the word ‘marketing’ was used? >No, I didn’t catch that.  It appeared to me they discussed them >individually and their relationships one to another throughout the >entire report;  pp. 3,5,10,11,12,13,16.  Where are you seeing this?

Read the headings on table 1 on page 3.  They are combining 3 different categories then lumping them all under the phrase ‘marketing.’ "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

Response:

> . > BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to > consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit.

Amusing…you find criminals amusing do you?  Do you work for Enron? See Attached: Johnson & Johnson Sinks on News of Fraud Probe Get Quote, Company Info: JNJ By Ransdell Pierson Reuters NEW YORK (July 19) – Shares of Johnson & Johnson tumbled to a 16-month low on Friday after federal regulators began probing allegations of fraudulent record-keeping at a plant that makes one of the healthcare giant’s best-selling medicines. J&J spokesman Jeffrey Leebaw said a Food and Drug Administration probe of the company was underway and that it apparently involves allegations by a former worker at the plant that the company falsified records. The plant, in Puerto Rico, makes Eprex, the firm’s anemia drug, which has been linked to 141 cases in Europe and Canada of a rare but potentially fatal blood disorder. The medicine has annual sales of about $1.3 billion, or about 4 percent of company revenues. Investors fled J&J shares as it became the latest drug company to come under the FDA’s microscope for suspected quality problems. The agency is already investigating Schering-Plough Corp., Ely Lilly and Co. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. for record-keeping and other manufacturing lapses. Earlier this year Schering-Plough paid the FDA an unprecedented $500 million fine related to problems at plants in Puerto Rico and New Jersey, Shares of J&J, a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, were down $7.10, or almost 15 percent, at $42.63 in heavy trading on the New York Stock Exchange. That is well below their previous 52-week low of $45.56. LAW SUIT ALLEGES COVER-UP The New York Times reported on Friday that the FDA and the Justice Department were conducting a criminal investigation tied to a lawsuit against J&J filed by a former boiler operator at the plant named Hector Arce. The report said the worker was fired in March 1999. In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, Arce alleged he was pressed to falsify data to cover up manufacturing lapses and was suspended from his job a few days before an expected interview with FDA inspectors, the article said. "We find no support for the allegations by the employee," Leebaw said in an telephone interview, adding that J&J would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. Leebaw said the alleged lapses would have had no bearing on the "integrity" of Eprex. Leebaw also said he had no details about Justice Department involvement in the probe, but that J&J would cooperate with all investigators. Neither the FDA nor the Justice Department would comment. Morgan Stanley analyst Glenn Reicin said the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation was probing the allegations against J&J, which is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "But I don’t believe the investigation should be a big deal for shareholders," Reicin said. The FDA criminal arm routinely investigates drugmakers but rarely verifies serious wrongdoing, he said. "The Office of Criminal Investigation goes after companies all the time and the vast majority of cases turn out to be nothing," Reicin said. Merrill Lynch analyst Daniel Lemaitre said he believed "little, if anything, will stem from this investigation." But he cut his rating on J&J shares to "buy" from "strong buy," saying they were vulnerable because they are priced at a significant premium to those of rival firms. SEVERAL FACTORS INVOLVED On Tuesday, J&J said the blood disorder, called red blood cell aplasia, had been seen in 141 patients taking Eprex, which is made by J&J and sold only outside the United States. In people with the disorder, the bone marrow fails to produce red blood cells. Eprex is supposed to stimulate production of red blood cells. Eprex is similar to Procrit, an anemia drug made by biotechnology company Amgen Inc., which J&J sells in the United States for cancer patients who develop anemia as a result of chemotherapy. Combined global sales of Eprex and Procrit were $3.8 billion last year, making them among J&J’s best selling products. J&J has said it was not certain why some Eprex patients developed red blood cell aplasia but that a number of factors may be involved. It has said the disorder has been seen only in a relatively few number of anemia patients with chronic kidney failure and that people with chronic kidney failure account for less than 20 percent of combined sales of Procrit and Eprex. Moreover, it has said patients developing the disorder had been given injections, rather than intravenous infusions, of Eprex. Consequently, it said, it would advise patients to use the intravenous dosing method

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to > consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. > I agree the drug companies are corporations, like any others, and should not > be expected to forego profits. I do find it a bit hard to forgive when they > try to bolster their public image (and avoid regulation) by claiming they > HAVE to charge what they do for the drugs in order to recoup R&D and > approval costs when the reality is that they are spending far more on > advertising and banking great profits. > I think they should be able to charge what they want. They should weigh > public outrage and the possibility that the public may impose regulations > via the their elected officials as part of the equation. They should be > allowed to advertise but they should be held to very high standards for > truthfulness, both lies of omission and commission, to a much greater degree > than they are now. They should be "outed" when they try to assuage the > public outrage by claiming the prices are R&D driven when they are really > driven by profits and advertising. There is nothing wrong with the profits > or the ads. It is the lies I object to. > — > CBI, MD

Perfectly stated.

Response:

> BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to > consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit.

I agree the drug companies are corporations, like any others, and should not be expected to forego profits. I do find it a bit hard to forgive when they try to bolster their public image (and avoid regulation) by claiming they HAVE to charge what they do for the drugs in order to recoup R&D and approval costs when the reality is that they are spending far more on advertising and banking great profits. I think they should be able to charge what they want. They should weigh public outrage and the possibility that the public may impose regulations via the their elected officials as part of the equation. They should be allowed to advertise but they should be held to very high standards for truthfulness, both lies of omission and commission, to a much greater degree than they are now. They should be "outed" when they try to assuage the public outrage by claiming the prices are R&D driven when they are really driven by profits and advertising. There is nothing wrong with the profits or the ads. It is the lies I object to. — CBI, MD

Response:

>>1) Who are these people? >2) How did they conduct this analysis? >1)  http://www.familiesusa.org/html/about/about.htm >2)  http://www.familiesusa.org/PPreport.pdf  (It’s a big file)

Did you catch the item in the report where the actual numbers came Marketing, advertising and administration? But after that only the word ‘marketing’ was used? This is the first time I ever heard a companies accounting department, personnel department, IT department, etc be considered an ‘advertising’ expense. BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit. "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

Response:

>Did you catch the item in the report where the actual numbers came >Marketing, advertising and administration? >But after that only the word ‘marketing’ was used?

No, I didn’t catch that.  It appeared to me they discussed them individually and their relationships one to another throughout the entire report;  pp. 3,5,10,11,12,13,16.  Where are you seeing this? >This is the first time I ever heard a companies accounting department, >personnel department, IT department, etc be considered an >’advertising’ expense.

I didn’t see this either.  The relationship of employees apportioned to their positions was discussed, illustrating the larger volume of sales employees compared to R&D employees, and the mention of the "marketing machine" considerations of the major pharma companies, but as far as I could tell there was no specific mention of administration apportionment.  Did you see this? >BTW, I also found it amusing that the authors of the report seemed to >consider that these companies were somehow evil for turning a profit.

Oh well, their babies need shoes too.

Response:

No wonder drugs are cheaper to purchase outside the U.S. Drug industry ad spending attacked Top companies spend twice as much on ads as research July 17  The top U.S. drug companies spend twice as much on advertising, marketing and administration as they do on research and development, according to a report issued on Wednesday.  The drug industry should stop scaring American seniors by saying that moderating prices will limit the development of new drugs. These claims are both irresponsible and wrong. Ron Pollack FAMILIES USA, a nonprofit healthcare advocacy group, said their analysis rebutted drug company arguments that lowering drug prices and promoting the use of cheaper, generic drugs would cut into their ability to develop new medicines.        Drug companies are spending much more on advertising and marketing than they are spending on research and development,Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, told a news conference.     The drug industry should stop scaring American seniors by saying that moderating prices will limit the development of new drugs. These claims are both irresponsible and wrong.        Senators said the report showed the need for a prescription drug benefit plan for seniors.        These numbers … are absolutely astonishing. It is worse than obscene, said Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, who is co-sponsoring a bill that would encourage the use of cheaper generic drugs by Medicare, the state-federal health insurance plan for the elderly. The bill is up for debate this week.        The group