PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC: Bayer Drugged Hemophiliacs With HIV


bronco0608
01-19-2009, 09:09 AM
<embed src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/145161/bayer_drugged_hemophiliacs_with_hiv.swf" width="400" height="345" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true"> </embed><br><font size = 1><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/145161/bayer_drugged_hemophiliacs_with_hiv/">Bayer Drugged Hemophiliacs With HIV</a> -

Shocking to say the least. Despite documents being released, only MSNBC picked up the story while the rest of the media has shunned the story.

Garcia Bronco
01-19-2009, 09:11 AM
So did the American Red Cross in the early 80's in the form of blood transfusions they new were tainted but didn't want to pay for the testing of the entire blood supply. It was cheaper to pay the lawsuits.

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 09:19 AM
So did the American Red Cross in the early 80's in the form of blood transfusions they new were tainted but didn't want to pay for the testing of the entire blood supply. It was cheaper to pay the lawsuits.


How would you even test the blood supply? And how many people would die because of the lack of blood while looking for the tainted one.

Gort
01-19-2009, 09:24 AM
let's see... an attorney, angling for a huge $$$ payday with a class action lawsuit, says that something is true, with no supporting evidence, and he's automatically to be believed?

there's an old joke about attorneys one should always keep in mind.

Q: How do you know when a lawyer is lying?
A: You can see his lips moving.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 09:42 AM
How would you even test the blood supply? And how many people would die because of the lack of blood while looking for the tainted one.


They can test it, they chose not to because of the $ of doing so. Ruined alot of lives, my brother got a 3rd degree burn on his leg and needed a transfusion, neither one of my parents could give it to him because my dad had been to the Phillippines, and both me and my brother nick were too young to give him blood. This was in the mid 1980's and they were petrified he was going to get tainted plasma.


:Broncos:

skpac1001
01-19-2009, 09:46 AM
They can test it, they chose not to because of the $ of doing so. Ruined alot of lives, my brother got a 3rd degree burn on his leg and needed a transfusion, neither one of my parents could give it to him because my dad had been to the Phillippines, and both me and my brother nick were too young to give him blood. This was in the mid 1980's and they were petrified he was going to get tainted plasma.


:Broncos:

Yeah, but isn't the choice also how many people will definitely die due to the shortage of blood while waiting for the blood to be tested? I don't think its simply a cost issue. It seems like at least in your brothers case its a good thing they didn't withhold the blood.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 09:52 AM
Yeah, but isn't the choice also how many people will definitely die due to the shortage of blood while waiting for the blood to be tested? I don't think its simply a cost issue. It seems like at least in your brothers case its a good thing they didn't withhold the blood.


So give them HIV instead?


:Broncos:

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 09:56 AM
So give them HIV instead?


:Broncos:

It is was an either or.

250 People die from lack of blood
5 people get HIV

HILife
01-19-2009, 09:57 AM
So give them HIV instead?


:Broncos:

The double edged sword.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 09:59 AM
It is was an either or.

250 People die from lack of blood
5 people get HIV


250 people die from lack of blood.

5 get HIV and dont know they have it.

Those 5 give it to 5 more, who in turn dont know they have it,

who give it to 10 more, and so on, and so on...

:Broncos:

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 10:03 AM
Maybe- But doubtful. Most people are not having that kind of contact with that many people.

Any way we should have drafted Ed Reed.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 10:05 AM
Maybe- But doubtful. Most people are not having that kind of contact with that many people.

Any way we should have drafted Ed Reed.



Yeah. People werent ****ing without protection in the 1980's...


:Broncos:

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 10:17 AM
Just because you are ****ing 5 people does not mean most are.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 10:19 AM
Just because you are ****ing 5 people does not mean most are.


Are you purposely being obtuse?


:Broncos:

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 10:44 AM
No but I am defending my original point.

The average American has sex with 8 people in their lifetime. This is at the end of their life. You are stating that they will have sex with 5 people between infection and Knowledge of infection. Statistically that would be very doubtful. Sexual promiscuity is going to by and large happen in distinct time in life. Anyone who is infected outisde of this time would lower spread rate dramatically. IE children, Old people, Married People.

Archer81
01-19-2009, 10:56 AM
No but I am defending my original point.

The average American has sex with 8 people in their lifetime. This is at the end of their life. You are stating that they will have sex with 5 people between infection and Knowledge of infection. Statistically that would be very doubtful. Sexual promiscuity is going to by and large happen in distinct time in life. Anyone who is infected outisde of this time would lower spread rate dramatically. IE children, Old people, Married People.


Except sex is not the only way its transmitted. IV drug use and fluid transfusion are big ones as well. Your point of saving 250 people or have 5 just get HIV is horrific, becuase its not going to wind up being JUST 5 people.

:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
01-19-2009, 11:05 AM
How would you even test the blood supply? And how many people would die because of the lack of blood while looking for the tainted one.

They needed to give it the Hep B test and it would reveal the HIV. There is a good movie on it called "And the Band Played On'

broncofan7
01-19-2009, 11:09 AM
No but I am defending my original point.

The average American has sex with 8 people in their lifetime. This is at the end of their life. You are stating that they will have sex with 5 people between infection and Knowledge of infection. Statistically that would be very doubtful. Sexual promiscuity is going to by and large happen in distinct time in life. Anyone who is infected outisde of this time would lower spread rate dramatically. IE children, Old people, Married People.

Where did you get your stat from? Just curious. That seems REALLY low to me.......

Los Broncos
01-19-2009, 11:24 AM
HIV is hard to contract, your more likely to catch HPV by having sex that is.

Ninjatime
01-19-2009, 11:29 AM
I read an article the other day that some guy got an HIV infected heart. Would you rather have an HIV infected heart, or a heart that doesn't work? Just be happy you got the extra time imo.

Plus now you get a huge payday to help your family out with.

Ninjatime
01-19-2009, 11:30 AM
Where did you get your stat from? Just curious. That seems REALLY low to me.......

Blame Halo :P :P :P

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 12:10 PM
Where did you get your stat from? Just curious. That seems REALLY low to me.......

It has been raising. But not as much as you think. For every Broncofan7 there is a rugbythug. Thus it balances out at around 50.LOL

bronco0608
01-19-2009, 12:21 PM
THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS OR BLOOD WHATSOEVER.

It deals with a drug that Bayer produced, and once they discovered that it was tainted with HIV, instead of disposing of it, they sold it to countries outside the US.

SO BAYER SOLD HIV TAINTED DRUGS TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS TAINTED. NOT BLOOD.

Tombstone RJ
01-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Except sex is not the only way its transmitted. IV drug use and fluid transfusion are big ones as well. Your point of saving 250 people or have 5 just get HIV is horrific, becuase its not going to wind up being JUST 5 people.

:Broncos:

bingo. The ends does not justify the means... serious lack of judgement and the consequences coulb be horrific. We know allot more about HIV now, but back in the 80's, we were all scarred to death to get it...

skpac1001
01-19-2009, 12:30 PM
250 people die from lack of blood.

5 get HIV and dont know they have it.

Those 5 give it to 5 more, who in turn dont know they have it,

who give it to 10 more, and so on, and so on...

:Broncos:

Well, there is no good answer here, since your right, that 5 could infect many many more, potentially far more then 250. For me though, it would come down to 250 instantly and definitely dying compared to 5 people definitely getting HIV and potentially many more getting it, and I would choose saving the 250 and taking my chances with the 5, doing all I could to track them down and control the further infection. For all they knew back then there would be a cure in a few years and save the life of those infected, but there is no hope for those who instantly die.

Its also interesting to note that they way it went down basically gave the patients the choice themselves rather then the blood company making it (with exceptions). And most patients (and the doctors caring for them) took their chances with HIV instead of refusing or holding off on blood transfusions.

bronco0608
01-19-2009, 12:41 PM
Bayer sold medicine tainted with HIV.

Once again, Bayer sold medicine tainted with HIV AFTER they knew it was tainted with HIV.

How about them apples? That is horrible.

Tombstone RJ
01-19-2009, 12:44 PM
Well, there is no good answer here, since your right, that 5 could infect many many more, potentially far more then 250. For me though, it would come down to 250 instantly and definitely dying compared to 5 people definitely getting HIV and potentially many more getting it, and I would choose saving the 250 and taking my chances with the 5, doing all I could to track them down and control the further infection. For all they knew back then there would be a cure in a few years and save the life of those infected, but there is no hope for those who instantly die.

That's some ill-begotten logic. Your quantifying human life... just like the Nazi's did, just like Stalin did, just like Pol-Pot did, just like, oh never mind...

WolfpackGuy
01-19-2009, 12:54 PM
Haven't heard that side effect yet on a commercial.
"Possible side effects, nausea, upset stomach, trouble sleeping, HIV!"

I still love the Cialis advice to call your doctor if you have a "loss of vision or hearing."
How the f*** are you going to see the numbers on the phone and hear what they're saying?

skpac1001
01-19-2009, 12:54 PM
That's some ill-begotten logic. Your quantifying human life... just like the Nazi's did, just like Stalin did, just like Pol-Pot did, just like, oh never mind...

Interesting you choose the worst leaders in modern history to illustrate your point rather then every government and health care system in the world. Every responsible public heath decision is made with trade-offs in mind (vaccines come to mind), pretending they don't exist or are not important is irresponsible.

kappys
01-19-2009, 01:02 PM
Thanks to the emergence of drug resistance among many bacteria we are likely to reenter into the use of rather dangerous antibiotics.

Chloramphenicol is a good example. Extremely potent, very effective, and carries a chance of bone marrow failure that could require bone marrow transplant to treat.

We have many medications that aren't safe. It all depends on how it is dispensed. If you are a hemophiliac bleeding out and your only choice is death or factor VIII that might be HIV tainted then it is up to you/your family to make that choice. This is known as informed consent. Based on the very brief clip I suspect any real case should hinge on this. If the patients/families were informed of the risk and chose to proceed I don't see a problem.

rugbythug
01-19-2009, 01:02 PM
That's some ill-begotten logic. Your quantifying human life... just like the Nazi's did, just like Stalin did, just like Pol-Pot did, just like, oh never mind...

SoapBox much?

Tombstone RJ
01-19-2009, 08:49 PM
SoapBox much?

:yayaya:

Garcia Bronco
01-19-2009, 09:31 PM
Gents, they could have tested it as used and before collected. They refused to do it with the knowledge that they were killing people with disease they didn't understand.

Spider
01-19-2009, 09:52 PM
Proven fact ............ Women dont get HIV or Aids like men do ........ the reason is they dont screw their a-holes , they pack em a lunch and send him to work

Broncos_OTM
01-19-2009, 09:59 PM
How can anyone be infected. Doesnt HIV die outside of the body in a matter of minutes

Mr Chatterboodamn
01-19-2009, 10:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products

United States

In 1993, top executives of three companies (Baxter International, Rhône-Poulenc and Alpha Therapeutic) met with leaders of the hemophilia community to outline the terms of a $125 million offer.[1] Rejecting the offer, David Shrager, a plaintiffs' lawyer, filed a class action lawsuit with Jonathan Wadleigh as lead plaintiff on behalf of American hemophiliacs.[1] Shrager had previously negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of Canadian hemophiliacs and then established a panel of claimants, led by Wadleigh, to advise him and other lawyers.[1] In early 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago decertified the lawsuit, saying it might bankrupt the industry.[1]

There became a split between Wadleigh and Corey Dubin (another named plaintiff) who favored appealing the Seventh Circuit decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, to protect the rights of all affected hemophiliacs, not just those who had already sued, while Shrager wanted to shift gears and pursue the separate federal proceeding that had consolidated hundreds of individual lawsuits that had been filed against the producers.[1] By June 1996, the differing groups reconciled, looking for industry settlement proposals.[1]

Meanwhile, the clotting producers were quietly settling many claims. Individual lawsuits continued to fail because most states had laws shielding blood products from traditional product liability claims.[1] However, discovery was producing damaging documents contending that the companies had collected blood from high-risk donors like homosexuals and prisoners, intensifying informal settlement negotiations.[1]

In 1997, Bayer and the other three makers agreed to pay $660 million to settle cases on behalf of more than 6,000 hemophiliacs infected in United States in the early 1980s, paying an estimated $100,000 to each infected hemophiliac.[2][4][8][9]

Soon after the settlement, because the New York state statute of limitations required people to file a lawsuit within three years of discovering an illness, New York Governor George Pataki signed a bill allowing people infected by blood products, or their survivors, two years to bring product liability suits against the manufacturers.[9] While the settled class members are barred from filing suits against the companies, the bill allowed an estimated additional 75 eligible persons to file suits.[9]

The plaintiffs alleged that the companies manufactured and sold blood factor products as beneficial "medicines" that were, in fact, contaminated with HIV and/or HCV and resulted in the mass infection and/or deaths of thousands of haemophiliacs worldwide.[3] The companies' failure to follow US federal law and conduct tests against viral hepatitis increased the risk of plasma containing HIV entering plasma pools.[3]

Mr Chatterboodamn
01-19-2009, 10:54 PM
it's hard to get page 1 google results using bayer search terms that make any sort of reference to this atrocity... I'm also really sick of how our government bends over backwards to coddle/protect large corporations. Corporations/banks basically control every aspect of our lives...I don't know why people aren't assembling for revolution of some type. Oh yeah -- Obama is one cool cat!