Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:23 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The FDA must take some blame here - 80 million people were prescribed this drug 99% of which suffered no side effects and probably enjoyed a much improved standard of 'living' i.e. reduced pain. Merck did hide some the side effects but what cannot be contested the drug did a lot more good than it did harm. If you asked the majority of the patients, knowing the potential side effects and the state of their health, I bet most would still have opted for the treatment.

That's like blaming the police for Harold Shipman and saying, well he was a good doctor to his patients besides the old lady's her murdered.

Most wouldn't take the treatment knowing the side effects, that's why once the drug was re-licensed most have stuck with a different treatment. We can easily analyse whether your statement is correct, if it were vioxx would be prescribed at similar levels to what it was pre scandal. It isn't, so they wouldn't. Because they didn't.

Your attempted justification of what Merck did, also shows the argument of why big Pharma is one of the industries where the free market simply cannot reign. It wasn't up to the FDA to catch them Merck lied and 60k people died. Merck exploited the limits of regulation and allowed people to die so they could make vast sums of money. The result of free market principles within the pharmaceutical industry is people who would otherwise have lived, dying. They simply cannot be trusted

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:48 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

To see Arthur the broken man he is made it all worth while.

It appears all his faculties are still pretty much working.
Not like that mad, starry, glazey eyed fooker who is being eaten by cockroaches and maggots as I type.
Mind, she was totally cuckoo well before she left parliament.
You'll even admit to that?

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:08 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Only one loser in that battle and it wasn't Maggie!!

It is now historical fact that Thatcher lied, and communities died. It is fact they danced in the streets when she died. That is her legacy, When you and I are gone and historians look back, they will see a warmongering, poor hating, lying Prime Minister whose citizens danced on her grave, who made her party so nasty, and so hated that even a Global financial crisis and 17 years of Labour couldnt get her party re-elected. She will be the bogeyman of history, a modern King John. She may have won that battle, but she certainly lost the war and no amount of revisionism will change that.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:25 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It is now historical fact that Thatcher lied, and communities died. It is fact they danced in the streets when she died. That is her legacy, When you and I are gone and historians look back, they will see a warmongering, poor hating, lying Prime Minister whose citizens danced on her grave, who made her party so nasty, and so hated that even a Global financial crisis and 17 years of Labour couldnt get her party re-elected. She will be the bogeyman of history, a modern King John. She may have won that battle, but she certainly lost the war and no amount of revisionism will change that.

It was 13 years of Labour, it just felt longer.
However, she did win, the only way she'd have lost is if she'd fallen down an open mine shaft in '84. She didn't, she beat the miners and Labour, it was her own party who showed her the door and when Labour won in '97, they lauded her and paraded her on the steps of No. 10.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:26 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It is now historical fact that Thatcher lied, and communities died. It is fact they danced in the streets when she died. That is her legacy, When you and I are gone and historians look back, they will see a warmongering, poor hating, lying Prime Minister whose citizens danced on her grave, who made her party so nasty, and so hated that even a Global financial crisis and 17 years of Labour couldnt get her party re-elected. She will be the bogeyman of history, a modern King John. She may have won that battle, but she certainly lost the war and no amount of revisionism will change that.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:33 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The FDA must take some blame here - 80 million people were prescribed this drug 99% of which suffered no side effects and probably enjoyed a much improved standard of 'living' i.e. reduced pain. Merck did hide some the side effects but what cannot be contested the drug did a lot more good than it did harm. If you asked the majority of the patients, knowing the potential side effects and the state of their health, I bet most would still have opted for the treatment.

As is the case with most drugs and most patients. The type of drugs I am on at the moment list the side effects as TB and lymphoma to name a few. Do I worry, of course I do but without these drugs I would be literally bed bound with joints that completely (and literally) fall apart. I also take a drug called methotrexate which is a chemotherapy drug but I don't have cancer, so you can imagine the side effects of this powerful drug.

When I was on my clinical trial the nurses told me that if anyone had anything wrong with them, developed lymphoma or other cancers, even if it was something mild like headaches, then the drug company by law has to list them as a side effect of that drug whether it was or not, as the patient was using the drug when they got that illness.

I would only go back on Vioxx if my current anti inflamatory caused me problems and there was nothing else suitable. Taking powerful drugs like this is a gamble in so many ways. It may or may not work for your condition and you may or may not experience side effects. I suppose currently, I am very lucky in that the only side effect from any drugs at the moment seems to be high blood pressure which is controlled by medication, which in turn has side effects The RA drug I am on now is fairly new on the market, so we'll have to see in 10, 15, 20 years time what the long term side effects are. I look at it from this angle; if the effect of the medication outweighs the side effects then carry on, if the side effects are just too much and are making you just as ill, come off.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:37 am  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cheme.html Truly, we're all Thather's children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cheme.html Truly, we're all Thather's children.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:51 am  

BobbyD wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10573027/Arthur-Scargill-tried-to-buy-his-London-council-flat-under-Tory-right-to-buy-scheme.html

Truly, we're all Thather's children.

No point in cutting your nose off to spite your face.
If it was costing the NUM 34 grand a year in rent he'd probably have ended up saving them a fortune in the long term with his tenancy discount to buy.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:51 am  

BobbyD wrote:

It was 13 years of Labour, it just felt longer.
However, she did win, the only way she'd have lost is if she'd fallen down an open mine shaft in '84. She didn't, she beat the miners and Labour, it was her own party who showed her the door and when Labour won in '97, they lauded her and paraded her on the steps of No. 10.

She beat labour by gifting them 13 years in power? And a party so unelectable even a global financial crisis couldn’t get them a majority? The Tory party is so hated in large swathes of the UK it barely exists, it is shrinking to its heartlands and having to hide behind xenophobia and invented enemies just to keep itself relevant.

Re: Scargill was right! : Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

She beat labour by gifting them 13 years in power? And a party so unelectable even a global financial crisis couldn’t get them a majority? The Tory party is so hated in large swathes of the UK it barely exists, it is shrinking to its heartlands and having to hide behind xenophobia and invented enemies just to keep itself relevant.

And yet, despite your strident accusations is expected to win the next Election.....

Perhaps a period of quiet reflection is called for in the Smokey abode?