Well, sure, there are drugs involved and at least some of them come from GSK. I don't get from the article that it is an actual drug trial, but maybe more of a treatment trial supervised and probably funded by the government.

Keep in mind we are talking about the BBC here bashing America, so my faith in the reporting is nil.

We are talking about experimental AIDS drugs. The chances of any profit involved in the process are probably nil as well.

I don't know whether there are ethical problems with the trial. Obviously the article makes it look like there are, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on a hit piece by the BBC.

We are talking about experimental AIDS drugs. The chances of any profit involved in the process are probably nil as well.

Oh good Lord, I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or break down in tears. That statement is so detached from any reality I can't even believe I'm reading it.

If there weren't prospects for huge profits, Art, the drug companies wouldn't bother. But you know that. You don't really believe that they spend billions of dollars to improve our quality of life and extend our lifespan. You know they do it so they can make many more billions of dollars, and if a particular drug is unlikely to provide them with those billions, they'll scrap it, no matter the consequences to our health. Mother Theresa does not run a drug company, let's not try to assert that she does.

I can't believe that anyone would defend the practice described in the article because they wanted to stick up for capitalism. You should be ashamed.

As for Record10, who is glad he doesn't have to make these "complicated" decisions about life and death, well, I'm glad for that, too. And I'm glad you weren't in a position to decide whether or not to carry out radiation experiments on retarded Americans, and I'm glad you're not a North Korean scientist in a position to carry out poison gas experiments on political prisoners, and I'm glad you weren't a Nazi doctor at a camp in WWII.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah, I see that now. My bad, won't happen again. Yeah, testing on kids is ok. Especially poor ones. I mean, they are poor and if you can find some poor orphans, even better. Might as well use them for dog food. It's their own fault for not choosing the circumstances they were born into better.

Vitus, you need to read my posts. I have not defended the practice as outlined in the article. I am skeptical, and I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion. After you cool off, you will probably admit that you don't either.

I will bet heavily that this trial is not being financed by a drug company with the expectation of directly making a profit on a drug development. If there even is a drug company directly involved, a fact not made clear in the article, it is probably financed entirely by some government study.

I am betting we have misinformation on the trial from this article. I am also betting it was designed, approved and financed by various governmental entities. I am not sufficiently informed to know whether anything unethical is being done here or not. Neither are you. Human drug trials in the US are strictly controlled by the government, so I am skeptical.

Don't let the BBC pedal one sided information and yank your sense of outrage around. You need to be more skeptical. You are assuming facts not even mentioned in the article, as well as assuming everything you are being told is the whole truth. These are poor assumptions.

[reply]I will bet heavily that this trial is not being financed by a drug company with the expectation of directly making a profit on a drug development.[/reply]

I'll take that bet. I don't think they supplied that drug out of the goodness of their hearts. How much are you going to lay down?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

My bet is not that a drug company is not being paid for the drug. Maybe they are. Maybe they are even being paid to run the study. My bet is that this is not a study created and financed by a drug company in the hope that the experimental drugs will one day make them lots of money in the form of a commercial drug to fight AIDS. That would just be a lousy investment.

If this really were such a study, don't you think the article would have mentioned it along with castigating comments about what a heartless company it is that is taking advantage of poor sick orphans?

These experiments, if the article is at all accurate, are obviously being hand held by the local government and certainly according to FDA guidlines.

I could be wrong about all of the above. I am willing to bet you kudos for reading between the lines more accurately than I.

Do you actually think a large drug company would go to a US orphange to find human subjects if it needed some to test a drug? Absurd. They could find them by the thousands in Africa with no concern for liability.

There is a lot this article doesn't say. You need to wonder why.

[reply]My bet is that this is not a study created and financed by a drug company in the hope that the experimental drugs will one day make them lots of money in the form of a commercial drug to fight AIDS. That would just be a lousy investment[/reply]

I'll take that bet too. Why else are they supplying the drugs - because they know they are BAD for the kids? You'd better hope they think it will have some effect, otherwise that really stinks.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

I am just guessing, but this sounds like a federal study funded by a grant to some research group, probably from the NIH. They buy the drugs or have them donated by the vendors. They are probably doing multiple drugs in combinations trying to figure out how to help the poor children with AIDS.

Maybe it is a poor study, and maybe it is being done poorly, but I am skeptical. The state is the guardian of those children. They have approved the procedures. Just because the BBC says it is off the wall, doesn't make it so.

Frankly, I find the Enquire to be much more credible.

The BBC wasn't banned from shipboard distribution by the British Navy for no reason.

The state is the guardian of those children.

"When Jacklyn Hoerger later fostered two children from the home where she used to work with a view to adopting them, she discovered just how powerful the ACS was.

"It was a Saturday morning and they had come a few times unannounced," she said. "So when I opened the door I invited them in and they said that this wasn't a happy visit. At that point they told me that they were taking the children away. I was in shock."

Jacklyn, a trained paediatric nurse, had taken the fatal step of taking the children off the drugs, which had resulted in an immediate boost to their health and happiness.

As a result she was branded a child abuser in court. She has not been allowed to see the children since."

But I'm sure that the state only has the kids' best interests at heart, and that the drug companies have nothing to do with their own experimental drugs being used here, right, Art? Cause there's no way the drug companies could be colluding with the authorities to abuse a vunerable segment of the population, right?

And besides, who trusts the BBC? I am, like, so sure this is going to be proven a complete fabrication, and all those kids will, in fact, be cured, thanks to their caring state guardians and the benevolent drug companies.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Wow - this took a left turn in a hurry. I'm guessing you've never submitted a grant application to the NIH?

Oh right I get it now. It's the Goverment's fault really. They are forcing the poor drug companies to hand over their experimental drugs so that that the Government can inject it into those poor children. Wow. No wonder the Royal Navy stopped paying their licence fee. I'm sure it would have devastated the average jack tar on deck to learn what a disgrace the American government was.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

I have never suggested that these tests are good things or that the state doesn't screw up with foster children. I am only saying to very skeptical that this report is the whole truth. I am further saying that this doesn't prove the drug companies suck. You don't even know what drug company, if any, knows anything about this whole situation.

For all I know the story is dead on and we have another Mengele (sp?) at work here. I seriously doubt it, but neither one of us knows.

You are going to need a lot more than this inflamatory article to make a case that any drug company (you can't even name the company) is colluding with any authority (you can't even name the organization, much less the individual) to abuse anyone. It is also entirely possible that these drugs, despite their side effects, help the long term health of these kids.

The reality is, neither one of us knows diddly about the situation. I admit it. Isn't it your turn now?

What left turn?

No, I never submitted a grant request, but I have worked with plenty that have.

I have no idea whether there is any fault. Neither do you. You have an inflammatory article that omits major and obvious questions. Neither of us know any of the major facts. For example. What drugs? What drug companies? Who designed the study? Who funded the study? What is the purpose of the study? What is the objective of the treatment and what are the side effects? How many people in the study? What authorities approved the study? Why were these kids selected? Who selected them? Who even knows who is in the study? Are the drugs currently commercially available? Which drugs are experimental and what is the history of each drug?

Gee, we don't have the answers to any of these questions, but, other than that, it is a splendid piece of journalism.

I wouldn't publish this rubbish in my high school newspaper.

Despite not having any of the relevant information, you let yourself be manipulated with obvious half truths from questionable sources with an agenda.

None of this proves that what the article says is wrong or that you have filled in the blanks incorrectly. It just proves you don't know anything about the situation, so suspend your judgment.

any drug company (you can't even name the company) is colluding with any authority (you can't even name the organization

Well, we know at least one of the drug companies- Glaxo SmithKline, and we know what authority- New York City's Administration for Child Services. I confess I don't know what other drug companies were involved, if any.

It is also entirely possible that these drugs, despite their side effects, help the long term health of these kids.

Yes, it's possible. They're experimental drugs. Do you think it's appropriate to use experimental drugs on orphans and foster kids, even against the foster parents wishes?

I am further saying that this doesn't prove the drug companies suck.

Whatever. Will you go so far as to say that using orphans as experimental test subjects is abhorrent?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I would be suspicious of using orphans as drug test vehicles. It is hard to see why they would be an appropriate way to test drug treatment protocols. Will you at least admit that there could be a good answer to those suspicions?

The only thing you know about GSK, assuming the article is accurate, is that they supply one of the drugs. You don't know if it is an already approved drug. You don't know if they are a part of the study. You don't even know if they know anything about the study. You don't know if their drug is helping the kids or not. You don't know if the drug is a cause of the side effects. Without these minor details, are you really on top of things enough to conclude that drug companies suck?

Foster parents are just hired guns. The state might have a good reason to dictate this path. If so, the foster parents won't get a vote. If they want a vote, they have to adopt.

Note I am not saying the state is right, or that the study is a good idea. Maybe, maybe not. I am just saying this article is garbage and does not justify slandering the drug companies that keep many of us alive.