A mix of greed, self-delusion, naivete, a desire to maintain one's livelihood, and an outright disregard for harm caused to others.
Plus, as each stage of drug development is done by people with distinct, and often, non-overlapping scientific or medical expertise (discovery of drug candidate, animal toxicity studies, characterization of drug's chemical and physical properties, clinical trials) it serves to isolate each group from seeing the overarching pharmaceutical toxicity. Subsequent adverse effects are largely ignored and hidden.
I happened to work in a clinical lab in which all the stages of development of a human protein injectable were performed by people in or associated with that lab, from identification of the protein drug, through clinical trials (performed by our MD's at the medical center my lab was associated with,) and even observation of adverse effects as those receiving the injections were patients of MD's in my lab.
All began well. But, during two consecutive animal toxicity experiments, all 21 animals (mice) died following their third injection from what the MD's determined to be anaphylactic shock. Studies (and mouths) were stopped and the data hidden.
Then, during selection of candidates for clinical trials, only those individuals thought least likely to suffer an anaphylactic reaction were selected.
As this was an obvious attempt to skew results of what was supposed to be a random clinical trial, some lower level scientists objected to this unethical decision.
Nonetheless, those in charge went forward as planned, and the drug is now FDA approved and on the market.
As bad as that might sound, at least in this case, the babies who did not receive the protein injection all died, so an argument could be made for the drug's use either way.
Current pharma practices are far worse. Illegitimately identified medical conditions, no actual need of any treatment, drugs which have no actual benefit, and drugs which cause great harm and death to patients. Effectively poisoning people to no purpose.
And, this use of "marginalized communities." As far as I can tell, that just means groups of people who the medical establishment has deemed to be easily influenced by their politicized medical propaganda, and their "marginalized community" sock puppet tools.
Oh, can we just cling on to ‘affordability issues’ and ‘information gaps’ as blessings in disguise to keep people from falling prey to Gilead’s sinister retention in care clutches?!
" including a temporary $17.9 million funding initiative to improve access to HIV testing with a focus on marginalized communities"
They can't sell PrEP without the 'HIV' tests, so of course they want to keep 'focusing' on new markets, I mean marginalized communities. But I keep coming back to the fact that despite not enough testing, given their need to 'focus' more on it, there's no raging AIDS epidemic in 'undiagnosed' people.
"Each week, it’s estimated that 35 Canadians are diagnosed with the condition, facing comorbidities such as mental health concerns, viral hepatitis and kidney and liver disease that negatively impact their quality of life."
Yeah, the kidney and liver angle caught my attention too. But this sentence is so nebulously written, probably intentionally so. 'Estimated'. What does that even mean in real quantifiable terms, not just 'we made this number up'. But what I read in that sentence is that 'comorbidities' are there both before and after 'diagnosis'. 'Viral hepatitis' is likely code-speak for drug abuse, which is going to make you more likely to non-specifically react to these tests.
A mix of greed, self-delusion, naivete, a desire to maintain one's livelihood, and an outright disregard for harm caused to others.
Plus, as each stage of drug development is done by people with distinct, and often, non-overlapping scientific or medical expertise (discovery of drug candidate, animal toxicity studies, characterization of drug's chemical and physical properties, clinical trials) it serves to isolate each group from seeing the overarching pharmaceutical toxicity. Subsequent adverse effects are largely ignored and hidden.
I happened to work in a clinical lab in which all the stages of development of a human protein injectable were performed by people in or associated with that lab, from identification of the protein drug, through clinical trials (performed by our MD's at the medical center my lab was associated with,) and even observation of adverse effects as those receiving the injections were patients of MD's in my lab.
All began well. But, during two consecutive animal toxicity experiments, all 21 animals (mice) died following their third injection from what the MD's determined to be anaphylactic shock. Studies (and mouths) were stopped and the data hidden.
Then, during selection of candidates for clinical trials, only those individuals thought least likely to suffer an anaphylactic reaction were selected.
As this was an obvious attempt to skew results of what was supposed to be a random clinical trial, some lower level scientists objected to this unethical decision.
Nonetheless, those in charge went forward as planned, and the drug is now FDA approved and on the market.
As bad as that might sound, at least in this case, the babies who did not receive the protein injection all died, so an argument could be made for the drug's use either way.
Current pharma practices are far worse. Illegitimately identified medical conditions, no actual need of any treatment, drugs which have no actual benefit, and drugs which cause great harm and death to patients. Effectively poisoning people to no purpose.
And, this use of "marginalized communities." As far as I can tell, that just means groups of people who the medical establishment has deemed to be easily influenced by their politicized medical propaganda, and their "marginalized community" sock puppet tools.
Infomative
Oh, can we just cling on to ‘affordability issues’ and ‘information gaps’ as blessings in disguise to keep people from falling prey to Gilead’s sinister retention in care clutches?!
" including a temporary $17.9 million funding initiative to improve access to HIV testing with a focus on marginalized communities"
They can't sell PrEP without the 'HIV' tests, so of course they want to keep 'focusing' on new markets, I mean marginalized communities. But I keep coming back to the fact that despite not enough testing, given their need to 'focus' more on it, there's no raging AIDS epidemic in 'undiagnosed' people.
"Each week, it’s estimated that 35 Canadians are diagnosed with the condition, facing comorbidities such as mental health concerns, viral hepatitis and kidney and liver disease that negatively impact their quality of life."
Yeah, the kidney and liver angle caught my attention too. But this sentence is so nebulously written, probably intentionally so. 'Estimated'. What does that even mean in real quantifiable terms, not just 'we made this number up'. But what I read in that sentence is that 'comorbidities' are there both before and after 'diagnosis'. 'Viral hepatitis' is likely code-speak for drug abuse, which is going to make you more likely to non-specifically react to these tests.
the deception is stomach turning