Human Guinea Pigs Among India's Poorest
    By Enrico Uva | November 1st 2012 10:16 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20136654
    There's no evidence that the drug trials from pharmaceutical companies caused the deaths, but there were no autopsies carried out in many, if not all cases! Finally, lawmakers are beginning to investigate.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    The mere fact that they occurred in this area, away from scrutiny and under the most lax conditions says all that needs to be said.  So, these are the corporations we're to trust?

    It's probably considered cheaper than using rats. 
    Gerhard Adam | 11/08/12 | 22:52 PM
    UvaE
    A few years ago I heard from an insider that this sort of thing also occurs elsewhere in the world where lax conditions exist. Many other people from within pharmaceutical companies don't approve, but that's not good enough. They shouldn't have to wait for lawmakers to step in.
    Enrico Uva | 11/09/12 | 04:03 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    This is precisely what fuels every anti-GMO food campaign, or anti-vaccine, etc.  This one story demonstrates that these corporations are not above using humans as guinea pigs if it is profitable.  Then people wonder why governments keep growing larger as more and more oversight is necessary in industries that simply refuse to police themselves.

    In the end, we already know how this is going to play out.  There will be investigations, some individuals will be identified, and then the companies will absolve themselves by claiming that a few "bad apples" shouldn't be considered indicative of their business practices.  In today's environment, corporations have become quite adept at "plausible deniability".
    Gerhard Adam | 11/09/12 | 07:58 AM
    UvaE
    Even business magazines have recently voiced concerns about mergers that make corporations too large. Aside from the social drawbacks, after growing to a certain size they don't necessarily operate more efficiently economically. But executives do it anyway to make the larger entity untouchable ("too big too fail"). One Economist article gave the neat analogy of how it becomes inefficient to build skyscrapers past a certain height because wind speed increases exponentially, so it becomes too expensive to make the structural adjustments. It's cheaper to have two mid-sized towers.
    Enrico Uva | 11/09/12 | 09:35 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    Absolutely, but more importantly, we end up having to support organizations that don't boost the economy.  They invariably reduce the number of jobs, they force a concentration of suppliers, and create a web of dependency that makes the entire economy more vulnerable.

    Just as in biology, strength is gained through diversity, not consolidation.  So, despite all the corporate apologists that think that any criticism is somehow anti-capitalist, it should be apparent to even the most cursory understanding of economics, that an economy thrives by the flow of money, not by focusing it into select organizations that no longer have to compete.
    Gerhard Adam | 11/10/12 | 16:21 PM