davidylan:

I wonder why ystranger didnt "copy and paste" this from the site he stole his other questions from:

2. Pfizer went to Kano to assist the Nigerian government during a seriousepidemic, and
they offered free treatment. Whereas some of the 200 children they treated with Trovan
may have experienced some serious side effects thatin some cases led to death, some
participants in the trial responded well to Trovan and thus benefited. After all, some
patients in the government and MSF camp responded poorly to chloramphenicol treatment
and died. Thus the deaths would probably have occurred anyway even if Pfizer had not
come on board.

Why is no one mentioning the fact that while 9 deaths were ASSOCIATED (note we cannot use the term "killed" with the use of trovan, 12,000 died from the epidemic! Why did those families fail to sue the Kano state government for failing to provide adequate medical care?

Some deaths were also recorded for many on the MSF and government-provided chloramphenicol (which is completely ineffective at the late stage of the disease and may have contributed to some of the trovan deaths), did anyone sue the government over the chloramphenicol-related deaths or was this just an attempt to extort pfizer?

Again from the same source - 5. The bacterial meningitis epidemic was fuelled by the squalid conditions in which the
communities of Kano were living, and that is what needed to be addressed urgently. [size=13pt]Pfizer
did not cause or exacerbate the epidemic; it only came into Nigeria to help and to test a
drug that could potentially improve the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children[/size].

Ystranger:

^^^^

ANd where is Pfizer today?

in December 2010 WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cables, which indicate that Pfizer had "used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout". The company had hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action.[65] Washington Post reporter Joe Stephens, who helped break the story in 2000, called these actions "dangerously close to blackmail."[58] In response the company has released a press statement describing the allegations as "preposterous" and stating that they acted in good faith


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Nigeria

Ystranger:


You may or may not believe it, i am seeing your link for the first time?


What I posted was a power point meant for discussion in small group in an ethics class some 'ara-oko' village school somewhere.

davidylan:

lol and this is the fool accusing others of being "factless" and "gutless"? Rather that than go around copying and pasting from websites to look good. 

Just more of his tomfoolery:

His "questions":

You need to ask yourself the following questions - note how this is phrased AS IF he is writing the questions himself!

(1) Is it possible to conduct research ethically during an epidemic? Knowing fully well the Cipro, even in the US, is sparingly used in kids under 21. - Phrased slightly differently from the website, but the Ciprofloxazine example is discussed in brief on the site.
(2) Did Pfizer exploit the poor desperate people with severely ill children? > From website - "Did Pfizer exploit the poor desperate people with severely ill children?"
(3) Does illiteracy justify the fact that Pfizer researchers did not obtain proxy consent for the children they enrolled into their trial? > From the website - "Does illiteracy justify the fact that Pfizer researchers did not obtain proxy consent for the children they enrolled into their trial?
(4) Did they help to fight the meningococcal meningitis epidemic at all or they had their own agenda since pre and post Pfizer mortality rate did not change? > From the website - "Did they help to fight the meningococcal meningitis epidemic at all or they had their own agenda?
(5) Why did Pfizer agree to settle out of court?
(6) Would Pfizer have done the same thing in the US or UK?

What a shame.