4 ms·

After it was revealed that their products were infected and had to be recalled, they realized they could make some cash by just selling it in countries without

by fiblye 8y ago

After it was revealed that their products were infected and had to be recalled, they realized they could make some cash by just selling it in countries without easy access to western media reports at the time. And Bayer being Bayer, they did it. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego...

bcoates 8y ago
That's misleading to the point of dishonesty. It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS. There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.
- fiblye 8y ago
  They knew it was infected. That's the reason they recalled it in financially significant territories. They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
  - abandonliberty 8y ago
    >shortsighted Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Did you check their mortality rates?
      - shkkmo 8y ago
        I believe they meant consequences from the affected localities to Bayer. The point being that while it was immoral and disgusting, it may not have been short-sighted for their own selfish interests.
  - pnutjam 8y ago
    That's actually more common then you think. http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-safe-us/ http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-...
kbenson 8y ago
To be clear, doing something while disregarding a high chance of a side-effect is not the same as intentionally doing something. The reality is bad enough, no need to misrepresent it.
- JackCh 8y ago
  If you deliberately loaded a single round into a revolver, spun the cylinder and then put the gun against your neighbors head and pulled the trigger, would that not be murder in the 1-in-6 chance that your neighbors brains were blown out? Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it?
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it? Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent). Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      Selling the blood was pulling the trigger, both done with intent. Whether that action would result in a death was unknown to them in the strict sense, but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.

by fiblye 8y ago

bcoates 8y ago

That's misleading to the point of dishonesty. It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS. There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.

fiblye 8y ago
They knew it was infected. That's the reason they recalled it in financially significant territories. They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
- abandonliberty 8y ago
  >shortsighted Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Did you check their mortality rates?
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      I believe they meant consequences from the affected localities to Bayer. The point being that while it was immoral and disgusting, it may not have been short-sighted for their own selfish interests.
- pnutjam 8y ago
  That's actually more common then you think. http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-safe-us/ http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-...

kbenson 8y ago

To be clear, doing something while disregarding a high chance of a side-effect is not the same as intentionally doing something. The reality is bad enough, no need to misrepresent it.

JackCh 8y ago
If you deliberately loaded a single round into a revolver, spun the cylinder and then put the gun against your neighbors head and pulled the trigger, would that not be murder in the 1-in-6 chance that your neighbors brains were blown out? Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it?
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it? Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent). Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    Selling the blood was pulling the trigger, both done with intent. Whether that action would result in a death was unknown to them in the strict sense, but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.