4 ms·
I recently listened to this podcast. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051174 It is about widespread fraud in
by ravar 7y ago
I recently listened to this podcast. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21051174
It is about widespread fraud in the drug industry. During the interview it was mentioned that some people are seeing organ failure due getting fraudulent drugs from abroad. It is possible that this is not what happened in this case, but it seems plausible.
To anyone who has the time, listen to this podcast. It was really educational and scary, pharmaceuticals fraud is no joke.
*The interview discusses the material in Katherine Eban's book Bottle of Lies.
- Avamander 7y agoInterestingly the EU is working on building a verification service for pharmaceuticals but some countries are pushing back.
- zaroth 7y agoThe human brain is wired to make connections, but it's important to step back and realize the universe of "plausible" explanations are almost infinite. It is nothing more than rank speculation that these two stories are somehow related. The world is teeming with junk science like this, and it can be dangerous and even fatal. (E.g. anti-vexers). That's why I think it's important to recognize it when you see it, and call it out. Even more-so if you find yourself possibly espousing damaging speculation without a scintilla of evidence.
- ravar 7y agoThe evidence is the podcast/interview. It is not known the extent to which generic drugs are affected. But in almost all the Indian plans investigated there was evidence of fraud, and I believe evidence of fraud was found in 80% of Chinese generic pharmaceutical plants. Additionally according to the author of the book there have already been cases of organ rejections due to fraudulent generics. Before dismissing my comments out of hand maybe you should look at my evidence.
- jiveturkey 7y agoI'm sorry but GP is completely correct and you are just reacting defensively. He didn't claim that your evidence was faulty, but that there is nothing to connect these two stories. You're making a link that does not exist. In fact, when you say > It is possible that this is not what happened you are making it seem quite likely that this is indeed what happened. With no supporting evidence. It's exactly what anti-vaxers do.