Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> 2. Despite what people think, it's really not all that
> clear what to do in Africa. The AIDS drugs that we're
> finally giving out there do some good, but the methods
> used to get them (basically, browbeating pharma
> companies that bothered to do research to try to cur
--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And now for something completely different: those
> _vampires_
> that control medical research are not interested in
> finding cures
> for any disease, they are just pumping money into
> expensive
> drugs that make _any_ disease a cronical disease.
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of
> drugs goes into
> development, cost and production, and that the rest
> is systematic overhead.
I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I
think 20% is a little low, though.
> I really don
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of
> > drugs goes into
> > development, cost and production, and that the rest
> > is systematic overhead.
>
> I can't comment on this muc
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam
> Mukunda wrote:
> > I can't comment on this much (for obvious
> reasons). I
>
> Not so obvious, actually.
All right. The reason is that I spent most of the
last two years working as a consultant to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:05:23AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Not so obvious, actually.
>
> All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years
> working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical
> industry and the
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was clear what you meant before your
> clarification, just not
> relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly
> available information,
> of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting
> like you know a
> lot about a subject based on secret inf
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job
> that involves decisions and information that have to be handled
> responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from.
You know, Gautam, if you don't keep
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we
> might forget how
> important you are and how you have all sorts of
> contacts and secret
> information that you can't share with us.
>
> Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
You know, Erik, if y
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be
eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship
Dan wrote:
BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the
beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they
would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew
what was going on, and respected them for it.
When you hold a government
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:49:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> Now is it clear?
It was clear before, just wrong, again. Under the law, I don't know of
any way someone can prevent you from commenting on publicly available
information. Even if you signed a contract that specifically stated that
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:55:29PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> ROTFLMAO. Erik, I really appreciate the work you do in research for
> this group, but on this subject you are speaking from ignorance.
ROTFLMAO. Dan, I really appreciate the data and references you post to
the list, but on this subje
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even
> discuss stuff that is "common knowledge" because by doing so you may
> verify or discount information that may or may not be correct.
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Naz
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even
> discuss stuff that is "common knowledge" because by doing so you may
> verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. I'm
> not sure it the same in
Erik Reuter wrote:
It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not
relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information,
In my experience (and I have a great deal of it), it is very wise to
stay well clear of the *appearance* of impropriety. To do otherwise is
a
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job
that involves decisions and information that have to be handled
responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from.
You know, Gautam, if yo
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:13:14AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I'm quite willing to consider your opinions on whether this is a good
> system or not, but I hear you denying the existence of such rules,
> which strikes me as naive posturing.
What rules? I am specifically talking about legality of
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we
might forget what a jackass you are.
Lessee, I believe we can trash this one under the header: personal
attack. At least stay polite. Or else take it off-list boys.
Sonja :o)
xROU: Let's play: same rules for all, shall we
__
Erik wrote:
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and
never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you
don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a
short email without having any possibility of revealing secrets.
Jane's F
20 matches
Mail list logo
