Well that’s the end of animal rights I usual run into. It’s not like anyone ever advocates allowing animals to be abused in a conventional aspect. And unneccessary is all in the eye of the beholder. The Europeans were telling the FDA that they were being unneccessarily cautious about Thallidamide. Years later, all those poor babies were proof that they weren’t. It’s not like any industry to test more than they feel needs to be done, it’s just wasted money one’s you’ve reached your level of comfort.
As for medicine in the pipeline, the first to market gets exclusivity. It’s not in my or GE’s interest to spill the beans. But yeah, there some good stuff waiting out there, however pharma in other nations often have a nice jump on us.
Let’s see - you’re worried about exposure to gamma radiation at your workplace, yet you believe less regulation would solve the problem. How exactly does that work?
That smells like a red herring to me. Are you saying Thalidamide was hastily approved without neccessary testing, due to animal rights concerns? If not, then it’s not relevant to the discussion.
So the real concern is that other nations with more lax regulations will cut into your profit, right? Sorry, but AFAIK, if you make a little less profit, but can eliminate a lot of animal suffering, it’s worth it. This may seem like a pretty radical notion to a lot of people, but some things are more important than profit.
Ugghhh. Let’s see if you can follow. If OSHA weren’t hell bent on removing all lead and instead was more flexible about where an exception might be beneficial, I could have more protection against gamma radiation, as lead is good at blocking it. Can you see that?
These corporate conspiracies really get old after a while, not everyone is hell bent on destroying the world to get that extra penny. Too often the inflexibility and across the board rulings for some benevolent goal don’t recognize that they aren’t always the correct method in every instance.
I don’t know if my responses to this thread qualify me as a Kerry-basher, but I was prepared to vote for Clark, and even updated my registration so that I could vote for him in the caucus.
And, would you have still voted for Clark after the Karl Rove machine had gotten through painting him as dangerous, unstable, and an extreme liberal on economic issues?
WHAAAAAAAA??? You are contending that OSHA will not allow you to have shielding against gamma radiation? C’mon, give me a fucking break.
Well, did you or did you not say that you were concerned about foreign companies beating you to the punch, rather than actual concern that medicines might not ever be available for those who need them? It seems to me that’s what you said. That makes it solely a monetary issue for you, not a moral one. If you want to characterize that as “hell bent on destroying the world to get that extra penny” - fine. Those are your words, not mine.
Really? Because I asked you for examples where that is the case, and you have failed to provide even a single one, save the very dubious claim that OSHA prevented you from installing sheilding for gamma radiation.
The problem with Kerry, and the Democrat politicians in general, is that they let the Republicans dictate the pace on just about every topic. Now the Democrats look reactive instead of proactive, that is, putting their own solutions out.
OSHA wants lead, especially exposed lead removed from the workplace.
Radiation is outside of OSHA’s perview, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in charge of that. See, already we have a regulatory disconnect.
OSHA doesn’t grant any special exemptions, they just want lead removed from the workplace. Note the inflexibility, this is an across the board change that is generally good for workers, however detrimental for a minority.
Are you following that? I never said that “OSHA will not allow you to have shielding against gamma radiation”, I said that OSHA wants to remove lead from the workplace which we use to shield ourselves.
Another example for you:
The FDA wants to maximize the inspection of product.
The NRC wants to minimize exposure to radioactive material.
Our product is radioactive. How do we minimize and maximize at the same time? We can’t, we have to find a balance that we hope both agencies are confortable with. It’s not like they talk and come to a comprimise.
And as far as worrying about other companies beating mine to the punch, sure it’s a monetary issue. But if we don’t put anything out, I get laid off and my family goes hungry. That’s sort of a moral issue for me. It’s not like people are cruel to lab animals, we don’t want them to suffer. But when Avon wants to put out a new eyeliner and it’s the choice between testing it in some poor bunny rabbit’s eyes or waiting to see if Suzy Teenager goes blind, which would you choose? It’s not like complex biological interactions can be figured out by computational analysis. We had to pinch of the urethra’s of lab rats to determine if a drug was detrimental to the renal system. Did anyone enjoy that? No, but it’s better than having a bunch of people without functioning kidneys.
Do you have a better solution? People with PhDs and year of experience tried to find a simpler way but couldn’t come up with one. Should we not make the drug? Would you be upset if your loved one went to the doctor and you heard “Well, we’d like to scan her for cancer, but this drug could destroy some of her organs. Would you prefer exploritory surgery?” Wow, what a wonderful choice.
First of all, personal insults are against the rules here. Second, the fact that you failed to explain what you were talking about does not make me dense.
Sorry to put you out by making you actually explain what the hell you’re talking about.:rolleyes:
Did you have to remove the lead? Are you now being exposed to gamma radiation? I don’t understand your complaint. Should OSHA just drop the regulations against lead? You really don’t seem to have a coherent argument. I would think that the solution would be not to have LESS regulation, but for the agencies to communicate with each other.
Radiation is dangerous, is it not? Are you saying that there shouldn’t be any regulations against exposure to radiation? I’m not seeing how less regulation is a panacea.
Do we really need new kinds of eyeliner? We don’t have enough kinds already?
I already said that I only object to UNNECESSARY testing, not necessary testing.
That’s a red herring, isn’t it? You already conceded that you’re merely talking about a difference of whether foreign companies beat you to the money. You failed to provide any examples where people are denied beneficial drugs due to being stymied by animal-rights regulations. It’s pretty disingenuous to keep bringing it up.
Well, I must admit to being no expert in OSHA regulations concerning lead and radiation. And, maybe there are some stupid things in the regulations. God knows that any bureaucracy…like the company I work for…has lots of stupid rules. (Examples: Because the lawyers are scared and the computer people want to save money, all our e-mail gets deleted after 45 days unless we explicitly and individually save each message for longer.)
But, I am a little suspicious of your claims here. I found this page that seems to imply that OSHA does consider radiation to be within it perview. And, here is a page which talks about the shielding qualities of various materials including lead. Now, it could be that the actual regulations try to discourage the use of lead in favor of other materials that are less toxic to people and environment…or maybe they even don’t allow its use at all. But, you haven’t come close to showing us this (nor that it is necessarily a bad thing).
If George W. Bush attempted to eat another pretzel and somehow damaged his brain in a manner that unlocked the other 3/4ths that he hasn’t been using, thus instigating a cathartic change of heart on his psuedo-fascist concepts of American society and foreign relations, leading him to re-sign the bazillions of international treaties he backed out of, shoot Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and company into the sun, apologize for screwing the pooch with the surplus, withdraw the suggestion of an ammendment to ban gay marriage, apologize to the Iraqi and Afghan people for raping them, and stop generally acting as the greatest threat to freedom and peace in this nation and the planet…
Then yea, I think a lot of people would change their mind on Bush.
Hell, it doesn’t even have to be Kerry. Just make “Not Bush” an option on the ballot. My vote is there. I don’t care if he’s replaced with the inanimate carbon rod, or one of those monkeys that claps the symbals, or what, but it doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to change my opinion of him.
Damn, that was going to be my shamelessly glib thread hijack! And the actor playing the scheming Dr. Carl Hill was David Gale [R.I.P.], BTW.
For anyone who cares about this sort of thing, here’s a link to a http://www.megarad.com/modules.php?name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=652horror movie board where posters have debated this alleged similarity. Scroll down to the third post; the pic shows actors Jeffrey Combs and David Gale (as a re-animated severed head in a surgical tray) in a still from the movie. Not the most flattering pic of Gale, understandably, but not all that bad, considering.
After careful consideration of this alleged similarity, however, I must concede that, compared to John Kerry, David Gale’s complexion was much clearer; his chin and jawline more refined (and, frankly, normal-looking); his build slimmer, his cheekbones finer and more prominent. In short, the actor was much more attractive than the presumptive Dem candidate. You could even go so far as to say that compared to Gale, Kerry could use “re-animating”…
True David Gale trivia: when David Gale and his wife first saw “Re-Animator” in a theater screening, the wife was so offended by the scene in which Gale’s severed head attempts to go down on actress Barbara Crampton, she immediately left the theater and promptly filed for divorce.
Yes, she divorced him shortly after the movie came out. Apparently, that scene was the last straw (or something).
I’m re-watching the Re-Animator “Millenium Edition” DVD now, with the cast commentary turned on, which is where I think I learned this trivia bit, although I could be wrong about the source. Hunting down the source could take awhile; there’s two commentary tracks and a bunch of other extras to sift through…
