A Bitter Harvest

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Saturday, July 14, 2007 01:14
VIEWED: 4973
PAGE 1 of 1

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 8, 2007 11:38 AM

Initial followup, Re: Gardasil.

Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine

Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail 1,637 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil

(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician’s assistant reported that a female patient “died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.” Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

“The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug.”

Judicial Watch filed its request on May 9, 2007, and received the adverse event reports from the FDA on May 15, 2007. Judicial Watch has posted the adverse event reports below.

(A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.)

Links to the actual PDF files are at the original site here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6299.shtml

The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum and, although aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials. Merck and the FDA did not disclose how much aluminum was in the placebo.

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue.
Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection site occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients.
About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia.
Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

"Merck and the FDA do not reveal in public documents exactly how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials, how many of them received hepatitis B vaccine and Gardasil simultaneously, and how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with Gardasil or

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, July 8, 2007 11:48 AM

Clarification:

Although I still am of the *personal* opinion they should sent this stuff back entire till they get it right, that isn't what my issue is here.

It's that whole mandatory thing.

If a parent thinks it's worth the risk, has read the relevant disclaimers and fine print and is willing to sign a release - that's fine.

If a parent thinks the risk is too high and doubts it's usefulness or effectiveness, that's also fine.

The line comes when a politician mandates that choice FOR you, without regard to parental rights, or the risks and dangers involved.

Not Safe ?
Not Mandatory!

Sorry for not being clear in the first post, my bad.

-Frem

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 8, 2007 2:22 PM

Isn't this the same drug which the Gov. of Texas tried to force all girls in the state to be given? I think the issue of individual rights clearly trumps the 'risk' factor here, and that no such mandatory inocculation be forced onto the children.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PENGUIN

Sunday, July 8, 2007 2:31 PM

I've always felt the whole idea was absurd...a vaccine that "may" treat "some" types of a disease...20 years down the road how the heck do you tell if the disease you have "should" have been treated by the vaccine??

Snake oil...

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, July 8, 2007 6:12 PM

Having grown up largly unvaccinated, I can say with complete confidence that parents always have a choice. You have to dig and do your research on the options (YES I agree it should be the other way around) but there is always a choice. My mom would claim a religious reason for keeping my body pure, both because it was true and it was easier. But a medical concern can be claimed, if you're willing to deal with the red tape. When I was registered for school and my mom received the card demanding proof of vaccination, she would flip it over, sign her objection to it, and they would have to admit me. I think a doctor's opinion is required for a medical concern against is.
I'll say again, YES I absolutely believe that, instead of having to sign something to keep potential hazards away from your children, you should have to sign something saying you think it's worth the risk. However, since it doesn't work that way, since the drug companies are so huge and so rich and so powerful, since the government is perfectly happy to tell people what's best for them and many people are perfectly happy to listen, those who are concerned should be aware of the ways around the system.
I have not received this vaccine. There are countless others I also haven't received. I won't. No children I may have in the future will. Unless there is an epidemic akin to the polio devestation of so long ago, or there's a strong local possibility of infection. I see no reason to subject a baby, a young child, a teenager, to something that could potentially wreak havoc with their delicate and developing systems. Even as an adult, I shun flu shots and 'boosters' because I've always been able to shake off something simple like a cold or flu without too much trouble, and if the situation was dire and my temperature was dangerously high, there are ways to deal with that. It's never happened. Most years I don't even get sick, and if I do I have a far easier time with that than most people I've seen dealing with complications from a flu shot. I've seen more than one person become ill, feverish, and miserable after getting the 'preventitive' shot.
It's all about weighing risk. What's the possibility that I'll catch something? That it will kill or cripple me if I do? What are the side effects of something meant to prevent an illness? I weigh my choices and find myself more often than not staying home and away from needles (which, as an aside, I have a rather violent aversion to just from my brief encounters with them). Sometimes I get the sniffles. Someties I'm sore and slightly fevered for a couple days. Sometimes I even throw up. Oh ing well. Better than having my body, which I know is sensitive to drugs and treatments, reacting in ways that will leave me miserable or weakened for life.
There is always choice. It's harder to swim against the mainstream, but it's possible.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, July 8, 2007 6:26 PM

i know someone around here(chrisisall or canttakesky)has made the argument many times that vaccines have the potential to cause more damage then well being; maybe they havent seen the article yet. ive personally always been against the idea of enforced vaccination.. i kind of knee-jerkingly avoid them, out of spite, because of the Orwellian overtones.

i think its interesting that you can opt out by claiming a religious preference, but otherwise are required to get permission by a doctor. why is that? ... i wonder if it has to do with the concept of sovereign rights(under a Creator), rather then 'state' issued (by human beings)

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, July 8, 2007 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think its interesting that you can opt out by claiming a religious preference, but otherwise are required to get permission by a doctor. why is that?

I think it's because otherwise there are many people who could (and would) claim discrimination, persecution, or other lawsuit-worthy grievances. Same with being told by a medical practitioner that such things are inadvisable and being forced into it anyway. School districts would obviously prefer not to deal with that; they have little enough money as it is.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 8, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think its interesting that you can opt out by claiming a religious preference, but otherwise are required to get permission by a doctor. why is that? ... i wonder if it has to do with the concept of sovereign rights(under a Creator), rather then 'state' issued (by human beings)

That is interesting. I think it's indicative of the fact that most people don't understand why we have freedom of religion in the first place. It's not because religious folks should have some privileged position in society. It's an extension of the more basic notion that people have the right to think their own thoughts, and to decide for themselves what's good for them and what's not.

Many of the founders were reluctant to include a list of specific rights, like the freedom of religion, in the constitution. They were concerned that making a list, which would inevitably be incomplete, might encourage people to see the list as the only rights guaranteed by government, all others being up for grabs.

Madison made the point that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were already implied by the constitution - the constitution didn't grant the federal government the power to do the sorts of things the Bill of Rights purported to protect against. He worried that listing the rights would inversely imply that the government did have those sorts of powers, powers not expressed in the constitution. It's seems his concerns were well founded.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JONGSSTRAW

Sunday, July 8, 2007 9:33 PM

I got a polio shot that was government mandated back in 1958...I've been under the mind control of The Surgeon General ever since....really, you gotta watch out for those Government conspiracies, they'll get you every time...one day it's Polio vaccine shot, next they'll ship you off to a detention center on the Malabar Front....I still wake up with cold sweats in the middle of the night with an irrational compulsion to get a Life Alert...The Big Bad Government is so scary.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, July 8, 2007 11:22 PM

government exists to serve the people, but the government we have serves itself. do you think youre wise to trust that this government,(unlike its representatives) is benevolent? sounds more foolish to me

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, July 8, 2007 11:51 PM

Your government is incompetent and self-serving because the people allow it to be so.

In other words, you can't bitch about how the government serves only itself when the ultimate responsibility for that lies with the voting public.

What you don't realize is that you comment on the people far more than the government.

Just another drive by posting by SigmaNunki.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 9, 2007 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What you don't realize is that you comment on the people far more than the government.

That's probably the most important point that can be made here. That's why I feel it's so important to talk to people and raise awareness about the proper role of government. It's the apathy and insecurity of everyday voters that drives us toward overbearing government. We can vote Bush and the neo-cons out of office, but if we don't learn any lessons from it, if we fail to acknowledge our implicit support of everything that they did, we're liking to see the same kinds of shenanigans again, probably sooner rather than later.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 9, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:

Sigmanunki-Your government is incompetent and self-serving because the people allow it to be so.

i agree. what do you mean by 'my' government though.. do you live somewhere other then the US? if so, please explain why yours is more effective

Quote:
In other words, you can't bitch about how the government serves only itself when the ultimate responsibility for that lies with the voting public.

i can too bitch about it... if no one complained, then the apathetic voters would be sheltered from debate, and continue to vote for bigger government. i vote on principle.. so i fulfill my responsibilities. in the meantime, i can criticize and argue about it all i want, im not the one supporting the stuff

Quote:
What you don't realize is that you comment on the people far more than the government.

thats a good point, and i do realize that... but for the clarity of our discussion, we should refer to our body of elected officials by their proper name. i understand we elect them, and are equally responsible for the outcome, but i also know that a lot of corruption and conspiracy and opportunism takes place behind closed doors, without the knowledge or consent of the public. whether its poisonous vaccines, or faulty war intelligence, we are not immune to diception, and falling victim isnt necessarily our fault(although we are expected to gain wisdom from these experiences)

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 9, 2007 5:28 AM

Hard to vote on something they keep secret from ya, Sigma.

Or just DO, without bothering with even the pretense of having a vote on.

Not to mention between voter suppression initiatives, gerrymandering and other less blatant chicanery, the whole process is quickly becoming a mockery.

Folks ARE working on that, Bev Harris comes to mind, amongst others, but as I stated earlier, we're already "down to box three" and I sure as hell would prefer it not come to "box four".

All this hellraising comes to that exact purpose, doesn't it ?

Locally, my political district and the one's close to it tend to be awfuldamnfast with a recall vote when the politicos around here screw up - I forsee another one coming in short order over demanding yet another blank-check budget for a police force that could cover the whole little podunk town with THREE cops and a bicyle...

We oughta have decent provisions for doing that to congressfolk who muff the job too, for damn sure Levin and Conyers would be out of a job in short order, one for selling us out to foreigners and one for being so much of a wuss that his WIFE has had to step up locally and put the arm on him to get him to do his job, grrr.

Start removing the layers of bullshit that protect an entrenched politician from the wrath of his constituency and the problem tends to self correct in short order, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, July 9, 2007 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Not to mention between voter suppression initiatives, gerrymandering and other less blatant chicanery, the whole process is quickly becoming a mockery.

Becoming?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Hard to vote on something they keep secret from ya, Sigma.

Or just DO, without bothering with even the pretense of having a vote on.

You've missed the point. Everyone knew what Bush was going to do through what he'd /already/ done, and what /he/ /said/ he do /again/. This was no secret. In fact, it was pretty much his entire campaign.

The American people /voted/ in a known issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Start removing the layers of bullshit that protect an entrenched politician from the wrath of his constituency and the problem tends to self correct in short order, believe it.

Definitely agree with this one. But again, just not voting in known issues will do a world of good and this is effective without having to make /any/ changes to the current system.

In all honesty, when it comes to voting for the president, to get to this point, the politician will have a long track record telling of who they are. To ignore this is profound stupidity. Believe /that/.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, July 9, 2007 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

i agree. what do you mean by 'my' government though.. do you live somewhere other then the US? if so, please explain why yours is more effective

EDIT: I did reply to this, but have decided to edit it out. I did this because why my gov is more (or less) effective is exactly not the point and is exactly not what is being discussed. My gov has absolutely NOTHING to do with how effective your gov is. So, I deleted it because I have no inclination to get into the inevitable pissing contest about who's country is better. You had me for a little bit, though. Nice try, almost worked.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

i can too bitch about it... if no one complained, then the apathetic voters would be sheltered from debate, and continue to vote for bigger government. i vote on principle.. so i fulfill my responsibilities. in the meantime, i can criticize and argue about it all i want, im not the one supporting the stuff

Complaining does exactly /nothing/. Since all "you" (seem to) do is complain, people will stop listening b/c that's all "you" do. A great example of this is your democrats. It doesn't matter one little bit that what they are complaining about "needs" to be complained about. People will start to ignore them. Which is good chunk of the reason why Bush won.

This is also why complaining will _not_ get people into the debate. All complaining will do is back people against the wall and turn them off. They'll just dig in and not be willing to see another side b/c they've become very defensive. That's human nature. A great example of this is the "debate" in your country. Just look how polarized the entire thing is and how it resembles a screaming match with no-one actually listening *far* more than people actually debating.

Btw, your responsibilities when things are going down the shitter (as they are now) is more than just voting. What must be done is actually doing something. There are several initiatives about that you could join. I imagine that they have lots of stuff that a volunteer could do.

In other words, you don't get a free pass to bitch about everything because you took a /small/ amount of time, one evening, every FOUR YEARS to vote. You actually got to do something. Sure, you /can/ /just/ bitch, but it is exactly meaningless if you don't get off your ass from time to time to actually make your voice heard. After all, how are your representatives going to know what you want if you don't tell them? A silent voice is a voice of approval to a politician.

I contact my representative regarding several different things that are near and dear to me. How about you?

Also, you /are/ supporting this stuff. You are after all paying taxes, right? If not I'd really recommend that you start as I hear that they IRS isn't terribly pleasant.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

but i also know that a lot of corruption and conspiracy and opportunism takes place behind closed doors, without the knowledge or consent of the public.

This happens in every government to one degree or another. It's nothing new, and will never stop. The only thing that can be done is to minimize it.

Bush pardoned that guy, right? Why don't I see people with petitions, etc again?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

whether its poisonous vaccines

This is a problem with the incompetence that is your FDA. They trust *way* too much the corps decisions and results.

There is a reason why it takes several more /years/ to approve drugs here than in your country. Basically, we actually test the drugs.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

or faulty war intelligence

Well, you guys /can/ and /should/ be blamed for this one as it was no secret and basically the rest of the world new it from the get go. So, why you guys didn't is beyond me. The info was freely available even at the time.

Quote:
Originally posted by

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 9, 2007 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i know someone around here(chrisisall or canttakesky)has made the argument many times that vaccines have the potential to cause more damage then well being; maybe they havent seen the article yet.

No surprises here.
BTW, Since age 10, I've not had puss-hitchin' dead virius crap injected directly into my bloodstream, and guess what? Never caught anything. And I worked in Manhattan for five years. If I was gonna get something, there would be it- a hub for world-virius transmission. Just don't lick the sidewalk or share needles or take a deep breath as someone near you coughs, and more likely n' not you'll make it through.

Make the white cells God gave ya strong with good nutrition Chrisisall

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, July 9, 2007 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Make the white cells God gave ya strong with good nutrition Chrisisall

Don't forget not weakening them with a lot of dead virius crap injected directly into the bloodstream for them to deal with all at once.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 9, 2007 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

Don't forget not weakening them with a lot of dead virius crap injected directly into the bloodstream for them to deal with all at once.

That too, definitely.

Like all things though, I'm sure some vaccines have their place- the polio one for example. But to me, it's an emergency measure when confronted by a known danger, not a condom for living in.

Chrisisall, PhDuh

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, July 9, 2007 7:46 PM

RUE

Monday, July 9, 2007 9:36 PM

JONGSSTRAW

"All the un-imagineable blunders, and pathetic circus-show events that have become our norm now, seeming to have totally changed and screwed up America will pale into comparison when Cindy Sheehan runs against Pelosi next year; that is unless Nancy brings up impeachment against Bush in 2 weeks as demanded by Citizen Cindy."

Is there a comment about vaccines anywhere in here ? Or do you belong to the "bash anyone but Bush" crowd, festering with so much hate it splats everywhere ... ??? Hhhhhmmmm ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Monday, July 9, 2007 9:43 PM

I'm happy to see people are making vaccine exceptions for diseases like polio.

This particular vaccine was not on my 'to do' list for anyone - partly b/c it came out of the emasculated, industry-friendly FDA. But maybe friendly is to weak of a word.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, July 9, 2007 9:55 PM

RUE

Monday, July 9, 2007 10:11 PM

Since your post was a partisan diatribe and had nothing to do with the topic - not even peripherally - it stood out.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 9, 2007 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm happy to see people are making vaccine exceptions for diseases like polio.

Gotta have balance

Reasonable Chrisisall

RUE

Monday, July 9, 2007 11:20 PM

Yeah, it's all about risk v benefit. You have to be able to make a reasonable judgment and not panic in either direction.

But the latest vaccine - - man, as a product of mega-industry and accomplice-government, it's giving medicine and vaccines a bad name.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, it's all about risk v benefit. You have to be able to make a reasonable judgment and not panic in either direction.

That's what I said! Only, you know, not as succinctly.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:15 AM

Oh, sorry then.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:17 AM

LOL don't be. I seriously doubt anyone read through my whole post. Not venturing down here very often and posting even less, I feel the need to defend what I say before anyone has the chance to put spin on it, so I sometimes go on. Plus, you know, I was agreeing with ya :)

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:18 AM

GENTLEMEN! WE CANNOT ALLOW A VACCINE GAP!!!

Turginsonisall

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:48 AM

Glad to see a reasonable discussion on this topic around here, quite a pleasant surprise in fact.

Nice to see you too, PR.. RWED can be a rough place, but i'm always happy to see ya, this world gets a little closed at times, and fresh ideas and opinions should always be welcome.

Anyone else gettin annoyed at Jongstraw yankin posts after makin em ?
Cause it's really damn disruptive to the thread of conversation, specially after folks have replied.

Anyhows, topic at hand - I think we need to remove all external funding from the FDA if we're ever to get them to do the job, it's one use of my tax dollars I don't mind so much, but only if the process cannot be influanced by big pharma corps.

It's not like it would cost a lot more, given the financial mess of cleaning up after bad medicines they never should have approved in the first place, and how much of that comes out of our pockets.

We should also, as mentioned elsewhere, open the door a little for alternatives, with the additional step of signing a waiver/disclaimer stating that such and such medication/process has not undergone the FDA approval process and thus only the manufacturer can be held responsible in case of... yadda yadda.

It's not really a huge step, but it'd make a difference - and it's a start to breaking the big pharma stranglehold on conventional medicine as well.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:03 AM

I'd also go along with the idea that the US cooperate with Canadian and German agencies b/c they are well ahead of the US in that regard.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:44 PM

This may sound a bit callous, but I daresay the Chinese might have the right idea, here.

China executes ex-food and drug chief
By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 39 minutes ago

China executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog on Tuesday for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash, the strongest signal yet from Beijing that it is serious about tackling its product safety crisis.

The execution of former State Food and Drug Administration director Zheng Xiaoyu was confirmed by state television and the official Xinhua News Agency.

During Zheng's tenure from 1998 to 2005, his agency approved six medicines that turned out to be fake, and the drug-makers used falsified documents to apply for approvals, according to previous state media reports. One antibiotic caused the deaths of at least 10 people.

"The few corrupt officials of the SFDA are the shame of the whole system and their scandals have revealed some very serious problems," agency spokeswoman Yan Jiangying said at a news conference held to highlight efforts to improve China's track record on food and drug safety.

Yan was asked to comment on Zheng's sentence and that of his subordinate, Cao Wenzhuang, a former director of SFDA's drug registration department who was last week sentenced to death for accepting bribes and dereliction of duty. Cao was given a two-year reprieve, a ruling which is usually commuted to life in prison if the convict is deemed to have reformed.

"We should seriously reflect and learn lessons from these cases. We should step up our efforts to ensure food and drug safety, which is what we are doing now and what we will do in the future," Yan said.

Zheng, 63, was convicted of taking cash and gifts worth $832,000 when he was in charge of the State Food and Drug Administration.

His death sentence was unusually heavy even for China, believed to carry out more court-ordered executions than all other nations combined, and indicates the leadership's determination to confront the country's dire product safety record.

Fears abroad over Chinese-made products were sparked last year by the deaths of dozens of people in Panama who took medicine contaminated with diethylene glycol imported from China. It was passed off as harmless glycerin.

Yan said she did not have any information about whether the Chinese manufacturer, Taixing Glycerin Factory, and the Chinese distributor, CNSC Fortune Way, had been punished.

"We will try to get more information from the department concerned and we will release it to you," Yan said. She wouldn't elaborate.

China admitted last month that it was the source of the deadly chemical that ended up in cough syrup and other treatments but insists the chemical was originally labeled as for industrial use only. Beijing blames the Panama traders who eventually bought the shipment for fraudulently relabeling it as medical-grade glycerin.

In North America earlier this year, pet food containing Chinese wheat gluten tainted with the chemical melamine was blamed for the deaths of dogs and cats.

Since then, U.S. authorities have turned away or recalled toxic fish, juice containing unsafe color additives and popular toy trains decorated with lead paint.

Yan said the food and drug administration was working to tighten its safety procedures and create a more transparent operating environment. The administration has already announced a series of measures to tighten safety controls and closed factories where illegal chemicals or other problems were found.

But Yan acknowledged that her agency's supervision of food and drug safety remains unsatisfactory and that it has been slow to tackle the problem.

"China is a developing country and our supervision of food and drugs started quite late and our foundation for this work is weak, so we are not optimistic about the current food and drug safety situation," Yan said.

Chinese officials have already said the country faces social unrest and a further tarnished image abroad unless it improves the quality and safety o

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:44 PM

The nasty part of me says

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:36 PM

But... but... but... Fletch2 says that counterfeit products are very bit as good as the real stuff! OH NO. I feel my faith in the capitalist system crumbling....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:47 PM

Sadly, the only reason why anyone cares is because it's China. If US companies were to, say rig power production to defraud US citizens of tens of billions of dollars, or perhaps profiteer on war for hundreds of billions - you'd get a big thumbs-up for good capitalist business.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But... but... but... Fletch2 says that counterfeit products are very bit as good as the real stuff! OH NO. I feel my faith in the capitalist system crumbling....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I refer you to my previous statement. Given your tendency to misrepresent arguments, quote out of context and assign positions to people that they haven't actually said (see above) I am no longer willing to enter into discusions with you.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:09 PM

Meh, Siggy, just go back and look at any of my comments in regards to free market/capitalism in discussion with such folk - it all falls apart immediately when someone mentions customer retaliation for being defrauded or mistreated, something inherent in a true free market system, something that most capitalistas emphatically do not want to be allowed to happen.

Whenever they say "Free Market" just read it as "Government Protected Monopoly(Mine)" and it'll present itself a bit clearer to you.

In essence they're saying "Free Market for ME, not those pesky competitors" as they start clinging to stuff like regulations and IP rights to protect them from actual competition, yanno.

In a true free market system however, instead of a government execution this likely woulda been a public lynching, but yanno... the end result this time is quite the same.

Imagine what woulda happened to Enron's execs ?
The capitalistas only want a "Free Market" up to the point of facing consquences for their actions, then they scuttle right back to the Gov to hide behind.

That's a harsh way to say it, but it is in essence, true.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
I refer you to my previous statement. Given your tendency to misrepresent arguments, quote out of context and assign positions to people that they haven't actually said (see above) I am no longer willing to enter into discusions with you.

I was joking. It was a mild poke in the ribs! Jeez!

But fortunately, the fact that you don't want me to talk "to" you doesn't mean I can't talk "about" you. Now, more than ever.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But fortunately, the fact that you don't want me to talk "to" you doesn't mean I can't talk "about" you. Now, more than ever.

True -- you can use the tactic of liars, propagandists and cowards but then you were doing that anyway.

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:35 PM

Fletch,

In this case, I think people can always go back and check the truth for themselves. For example I DID go back, and yes, you claimed at various times that people who made goods (in this case sneakers) could get the exact ones at a discount, or if not the exact same sneakers ones where the quality was just as good, that there were no such things as counterfeits, but if there were the quality would be the same ... you wiggled all over the place on that one.

The fact is, you did say those things. Here's an actual quote (one of many I saved)

Fletch2:
"No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent."

SignyM:
But... but... but... Fletch2 says that counterfeit products are very bit as good as the real stuff! OH NO. I feel my faith in the capitalist system crumbling....

Fletch2:
Given your tendency to misrepresent arguments, quote out of context and assign positions to people that they haven't actually said (see above)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:55 PM

Wow! Talk about humorless! I thought it was funny anyway.

Quote:
True -- you can use the tactic of liars, propagandists and cowards but then you were doing that anyway.

I was? Show me where. As I recall, in the last thread I laid out a rather comprehensive statement of my views on economics... which you kept naggin me for... and you didn't respond. I suspect you don't even recognize basic macroeconomics when you it's summarized for you, so you decided to attack instead of discuss.

Well when you decide you'd rather discuss I'd be happy to exchange views.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch,

In this case, I think people can always go back and check the truth for themselves. For example I DID go back, and yes, you claimed at various times that people who made goods (in this case sneakers) could get the exact ones at a discount, or if not the exact same sneakers ones where the quality was just as good, that there were no such things as counterfeits, but if there were the quality would be the same ... you wiggled all over the place on that one.

The fact is, you did say those things. Here's an actual quote (one of many I saved)

Fletch2:
"No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent."

SignyM:
But... but... but... Fletch2 says that counterfeit products are very bit as good as the real stuff! OH NO. I feel my faith in the capitalist system crumbling....

Fletch2:
Given your tendency to misrepresent arguments, quote out of context and assign positions to people that they haven't actually said (see above)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Right.... sneakers and fake drugs being the same thing and all.

In the context in which it was stated (which can be determined as you say) I was trying to show that there isn't such a thing as sneakers that are intrinsically worth $200. That shoes are shoes are shoes if they are functionally equivalent.

Are you REALLY claiming that fake drugs and real ones are functionally equivalent? If not you just misrepresented my argument.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:39 PM

I know you're not talking to me, but you raise an interesting question: Are there PILLS intrinsically worth $200?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:43 PM

Fletch, my ORIGINAL argument was that the luxury car worker could only afford the economy car ... etc. Perhaps you remember it. You responded in a very general way with this:

"In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles."

This was a general argument that you applied to the entire sequence: cars, motorcycles, bicycles and ... sneakers. I'm not extending your argument out of context.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:59 PM

It's too bad Fletch isn't talking to you. You have interesting things to say.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know you're not talking to me, but you raise an interesting question: Are there PILLS intrinsically worth $200?

And the answer is - no.

Added:
I can think of some things that would have intrinsically high value. For example when Mme Curie spent years isolating radium and polonium, the small amounts isolated for research meant that they were intrinsically very valuable. ("Because of the low concentration of these newly discovered elements, it required approximately one ton of the pitchblende to produce 0.1 gram of the salt. Much of the work was done as the subject of Mme. Curie's doctoral thesis in Physics in 1898.")

The people I know who got their doctorates from isolating or synthesizing new compounds, enzymes etc often spent years generating milligram quantitites.

But these kinds of valuable things are found in reserach labs, not on the market.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's too bad Fletch isn't talking to you. You have interesting things to say.......

No wet kissing in a public forum.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:20 AM

But ass-f*cking is allowed ? You seem to think so.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch, my ORIGINAL argument was that the luxury car worker could only afford the economy car ... etc. Perhaps you remember it. You responded in a very general way with this:

"In truth the guy that makes the economy car drives an economy car as does the guy that makes bicycles and just about everyone else does ride bicycles."

This was a general argument that you applied to the entire sequence: cars, motorcycles, bicycles and ... sneakers. I'm not extending your argument out of context.

No I didn't that is at best YOUR interpretation. Do you think that fake drugs (and by this we mean poison since that's the interpreation YOU chose to give it) are functionally equivalent to real ones? If yes then you're just a fool, if no then you are misrepresenting me.

Which is it? Yes or no?

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:27 AM

Fletch -

You made very general economic arguments. We talked abour cars, motorcycles, bicycles, shoes - and lipstick, steel, deodorant and food, even antimalarials. It was a general discussion not specific to one product, like sneakers. I'm sorry that you can't stand by your own words. But they are in this thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29217 for anyone to read.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:53 AM

I think Fletch is claiming a tautology: IF the counterfeit products are functional equivalents to their name brands, THEN they are equivalent.

No shit! REALLY? Equivalent products are equivalent??? Whooda thunk!?!

But it didn't come out that way when he said it. At the time, it seemed maybe like he actually was trying to make a point. Something about manufacturers selling cheaper to their home base, and depending on rich Ameicans who have more money than sense to pay exhorbitant prices for essentially cheap goods, thus guaranteeing their profit.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:05 AM

But as we see, counterfeits are often inferior: the Rolex that doesn't tell time, the luggage handle that pulls off, the golf club that only drives half as far, the drug with no active ingredients. I can't think of any story I've read where the counterfeit was just as good, or better. Perhaps Fletch will come by and educate us both on how to shop for value by buying counterfeits.

As to rich people providing the where-with-all for companies to provide brand-name goods cheaply to poor people - I haven't heard of that happening either. That's why India got into the business of making unlicensed AZT, DDI and other anti-HIV drugs for example. (Not counterfeits - not disguised to pass for 'the real thing'. But not cheap brand-name products provided by legitimate companies either.)

If Fletch has a significant example of that happening in the real world it'd be nice if he shared it. But I don't think he can find a real example of the hypothetical possibility.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:03 AM

Actually, Rue - I can indeed throw you one example of that, at least here in the US.

Breakfast cereal.

Many, if not most of the lookalike knockoffs in cheap packaging, that cost a bit less than the name brand stuff, are made by the same manufacturers as the name brand stuff they're imitating.

Haven't really seen it anywhere else, but that example did kinda stand out to me.

I eat the cheap stuff myself, why pay so much more for a brand name and a pretty box ?

But yeah there's at least ONE example, tho I doubt the practice is commonplace.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, Rue - I can indeed throw you one example of that, at least here in the US.

Breakfast cereal.

Many, if not most of the lookalike knockoffs in cheap packaging, that cost a bit less than the name brand stuff, are made by the same manufacturers as the name brand stuff they're imitating.

Haven't really seen it anywhere else, but that example did kinda stand out to me.

I eat the cheap stuff myself, why pay so much more for a brand name and a pretty box ?

But yeah there's at least ONE example, tho I doubt the practice is commonplace.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Actually it's almost all foods. "Store brands" are often made on the same lines as major brands. Some Sears Kenmore appliances are actually made by Wirlpool. Etc.

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:06 AM

This is going off on a slight tangent (surprise surprise ).

When I first started seeing advertisements for Gardasil I remember thinking, "Wow, the pharmaceuticals don't miss a trick." It shouldn't have surprised me, given all the examples of pharmaceutical companies creating pills and then manufacturing syndromes for those pills, that once another group had worked so hard to identify a problem that big pharma would rush to fill it.

The abstinence only crowd deserves the credit for hyping the market niche that the manufacturers of Gardasil exploited. Let me be absolutely clear, I am not blaming the abstinence only crowd for the problems associated with Gardasil. But, without their hyping of HPV as a leading cause of cervical cancer, I doubt that big pharma would've invested money in products like Gardasil.

Why was the abstinence only crowd hyping HPV as such a threat? Because it was the one virus that condoms might not deal with effectively (although that issue still seems murky). It allowed them to attack condom usage and rationalize not including education about condoms in sex education curriculum. The argument went something along the lines of, "Condoms aren't safe because they don't protect against HPV. HPV will KILL YOU. If you have sex, even if you have protected sex, you will get HPV. Don't have sex."

Well, it sure didn't take long for someone at the big pharamaceuticals to see the opportunity.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:31 AM

What I found about "store brands" is that they often do not meet the same specs as the "brand name" products. Some of the peas are big and woody. Or the flakes have too much sugar or not enough raisins. What happens is the "brand names" sell off-spec products to a different label so their name doesn't become associated with poor quality.

What I find interesting is situations where the consumer can't judge product quality too well, like motherboards. Some of the major PC assemblers (who shall remain nameless since I don't want to get sued) just grab all kinds of junk from the warehouse and stuff it on a board. Not even the same chipset from one board to another.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But as we see, counterfeits are often inferior: the Rolex that doesn't tell time, the luggage handle that pulls off, the golf club that only drives half as far, the drug with no active ingredients. I can't think of any story I've read where the counterfeit was just as good, or better. Perhaps Fletch will come by and educate us both on how to shop for value by buying counterfeits.

As to rich people providing the where-with-all for companies to provide brand-name goods cheaply to poor people - I haven't heard of that happening either. That's why India got into the business of making unlicensed AZT, DDI and other anti-HIV drugs for example. (Not counterfeits - not disguised to pass for 'the real thing'. But not cheap brand-name products provided by legitimate companies either.)

If Fletch has a significant example of that happening in the real world it'd be nice if he shared it. But I don't think he can find a real example of the hypothetical possibility.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

First up and getting back to sneakers for a moment, do you folks really think firms like Adidas actually own factories in Asia that makes the things? No they don't they subcontract, just the same as Sears, Walmart and many other brands. Often the same manufacturer makes for all these brands. Which is why I will say it again, at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers.

The mistake you make and keep making is that you REALLY believe that a $125 pair of sneakers is intrinsically worth $125 -- that is that a worker in China took raw materials and added $120 worth of value to it. Well he didn't he took materials and made something worth $20, which will be around the price the subcontractor sells it to Adidas.

So understand this. The worker has made $20 sneakers with an Adidas label on them. Next day on the same machine with the same materials he will make similar shoes with someone elses label on them. He will be paid the same amount, be as diligent in making them and who knows may even buy a pair. So you know something? All he's actually been deprived of is paying Adidas a $100 premium on it's brand name.

And this segways into the question you asked about the pill. I didn't want to get into it when talking about sneakers because it adds a complication to the old 19th century models of production and value that we had established as a baseline. In the case of sneakers it's so stupid as to be painfull, in the case of drugs maybe it's not so much.

If you go back to Adam Smith's manufactury and look at Marx's derivation of that the theory goes that the industrial worker in turning raw material into finished goods creates wealth by adding value to the finished product. When we talk about basic goods and commodities that is still generally true but these days there is a wrinkle.

Back to sneakers.

Mr Woo runs a company that makes sneakers. To keep his factory running all year he makes snakers for lots of different companies. All these products are very similar because he can't make anything that he doesnt have the machinery to make. In effect he takes $5 of raw materials and makes $20 sneakers, some of which have brand X that sell for $30 and some brand Y that sell for $130. At their core though they are the same sneaker. So why does brand Y sell for more than brand X? In part it's because brand Y's industrial design may be better, ie the sneakers they designed look cooler however in part it is because brand Y spends a fortune on advertising to convince the consumer that brand Y is worth $100 more.

Now when you look at the sneakers who added the most value to them. You and I would say the guy in China that made them because if he didn't there would be no sneakers. However he took $5 of raw material and added $15 of value to it, the same $15 being added to both brand X and brand Y. The difference in value between X and Y actually came about once it left his hands,

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I found about "store brands" is that they often do not meet the same specs as the "brand name" products. Some of the peas are big and woody. Or the flakes have too much sugar or not enough raisins. What happens is the "brand names" sell off-spec products to a different label so their name doesn't become associated with poor quality.

What I find interesting is situations where the consumer can't judge product quality too well, like motherboards. Some of the major PC assemblers (who shall remain nameless since I don't want to get sued) just grab all kinds of junk from the warehouse and stuff it on a board. Not even the same chipset from one board to another.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Except........

A surprising amount of equipment is made by the same manufacturer.

Some Nikon cameras are made by Cosina.

Most European cell phones are made by two companies in Indochina.

One of the cheap Taiwanese DVD manufacturers that you see in Walmart (dont recall which off hand) makes DVD players for Sony.

The list goes on and on.

The Apple Iphone is made in China from around $250 in parts, the extra $350 you are paying for is Apple's design, software and marketing talent. Now did a worker in China take $250 in parts and add $350 of value? Was that the designers that dreamt up the thing from essentially standard components? Was it teh guys that took standard parts and made it Gee Whiz by writing great looking software? Or was it the guys paid to make sure something with the word Iphone in it was in every news website for the last 6 months?

You decide.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:08 AM

"at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers"
Have you ever worked for a manufacturing company ? On the line there are all sorts of specifics to each particular run for each particular client. It may be made in the same place - but it's not made the same way with the same materials to the same specs.

"you REALLY believe that a $125 pair of sneakers is intrinsically worth $125"
Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe the sneakers are worth exactly what was put into them. If $5 worth of materials and labor (and materials are just labor off-site, so it devolves to just labor) went into making the sneakers, they are worth $5.

And since the rest of your post reiterates the same thing over and over (as Dulcinea you keep singing "it's all the same, it's all the same") which I know from experience NOT to be true, I hope you can skip over that argument and go on to something more meaningful.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"at point of manufacture they are all cheap sneakers"
Have you ever worked for a manufacturing company ? On the line there are all sorts of specifics to each particular run for each particular client. It may be made in the same place - but it's not made the same way with the same materials to the same specs.

They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost.

So why would you pay them much more to make one pair over another? And yes I've worked in manufacturing and I am well aware that there will be differences in processes and materials otherwise they would be making the same product. However it's not $100 worth of difference, in fact in the numbers we are talking about it's miniscule.

But you know that. You do the same with every argument you know you can't win, you bog it down in nit picking. Address the facts for once.

If I run the Woo Fat trainer company and I pay someone $5 to make trainers that I sell to Adidas for $20. The most value he's added is $15. That determines the maximum amount I can pay him, not what someone is willing to pay for that product half a world away.

Discuss.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:46 AM

"They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost."

Not true. To be boringly specific: let's say you have a line that attaches soles to uppers. It doesn't matter what the soles, threads, glue and uppers are. So you could have a multi-layered composite sole or a cheap thin rubber one, multi-component catalyzed glue or standard shoe glue, cheap nylon thread or PEEK thread, canvas uppers or leather. You could have tight specs and rigid QC, or loose specs and less QC. You could have fresh lasts or old ones. A tight timetable or a less tight time-table. And so on.

When a sub bids on a job it has to be able to meet the specs of that particular job.

Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:47 AM

Well, that went way past my knowledge of the subject really quick.... imma have to bow out due to lack of understanding of the subject at this point.

One parting comment, in regards to (don't laugh) pants...

I'm hard on pants, we're talkin grevious knee-destroying horrors here, and can (and have) rapidly destroy even army BDU fatigue pants in short order... ergo a pair that can survive more than two weeks has a "value" to me far out of proportion to the price, obviously.

So far I've only found ONE manufacturer who's product stands up, and although they're a name brand - no knockoff has come even close, so while fairly priced, I think I paid like $24 USD for a pair, they're "worth" far more, because I don't wreck em in under a month, in fact haven't wrecked any of em in over five months.

And yet, the cheap knockoff shoes I bought almost two years ago outlasted easily the name brand jobbies, so it's my opinion that you never DO know, there's no way TO know, a products quality until you put it in use, whether it be a name brand or not.

Caveat Emptor indeed, I guess.

Oh, and at the risk of being a bit of a shill, the pants in question are Dickies #86283 Ultimate Work Pants, I swear the damn things are nigh-indestructible - normally I wouldn't name names, but quality of that level deserves respect.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:29 AM

Hey Frem

Well, word of mouth advertising is beyond any price - Dickies #86283 Ultimate Work Pants - is now noted in my book.

Sometimes the oddest things have the greatest value, depending on your particular need for them. I always buy 3/4 sleeve over-sized all-cotton shirts to wear over my regular clothes. They keep the sun off when I go outside and they're handy as lab coats at work.

Notinfashionisall

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:40 PM

I get to see products compounded and packaged by commercial "packagers". Sometimes they're making L'Oreal and sometimes they're making CVS. But it's as Rue says: They have to meet the specs of THAT product. That's one of the reasons why counterfeits often don't work as well: no specs, no QA.

Dickies work pants. Also noted! Speaking of sneakers: if you know of any extra-wide sneakers besides New Balance that last for a long time let me know.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"They are still shoes and they are made by the same people at the same place at around the same cost."

Not true. To be boringly specific: let's say you have a line that attaches soles to uppers. It doesn't matter what the soles, threads, glue and uppers are. So you could have a multi-layered composite sole or a cheap thin rubber one, multi-component catalyzed glue or standard shoe glue, cheap nylon thread or PEEK thread, canvas uppers or leather. You could have tight specs and rigid QC, or loose specs and less QC. You could have fresh lasts or old ones. A tight timetable or a less tight time-table. And so on.

When a sub bids on a job it has to be able to meet the specs of that particular job.

Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Means nothing. I have had expensive shoes I've had to return because the sole was unevenly attached and after a days wear made a ridge that hurt my feet. I have had cheap shoes that have lasted years until the sole wore through.

How much QC do you really think is done for something with a production price of $5? Enough to add $100 of value? And you are still dodging the point so I will make it again. Is it the worker in the Asian sweat shop that take makes the shoe that adds the $130 value to them or is it the designers/marketeers and others that take something that costs them $20 to produce and persuades you to pay $130 for it?

When I buy shoes I look at the way they are made not the label on them.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:57 PM

Quote:
How much QC do you really think is done for something with a production price of $5? Enough to add $100 of value? And you are still dodging the point so I will make it again. Is it the worker in the Asian sweat shop that take makes the shoe that adds the $130 value to them or is it the designers/marketeers and others that take something that costs them $20 to produce and persuades you to pay $130 for it?

Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize. The problem is that there are several theories of "value". You both are using the same word to mean different things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

Quote:
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements. An example is the labor theory of value which says that prices in a market economy are a function of how much labor was put into the production of a product.

Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value, of neoclassical economics. The marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value, but simply an explanation of why things are priced as they are in a market economy.

I suspect that you follow one of the subjective theories of value. In your approach, increasing the subjective "demand" for a product through marketing increases the "value" of a product because it increases the price. Rue seems to hold to some form of "intrinsic" value theory.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Yes, I do. Something Fletch failed to read. So I hope that once he realizes his mistake we can have a more focused discussion.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:01 PM

I'd like to bring up one more definitional problem: people are using the concepts of counterfeit products and off-brand products interchangeably. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Off-brand products are bona-fide products traceable to a licensed, legal if lesser-known company. COUNTERFEIT products, by seeking to exploit another company's name-brand illegally are by definition illegal. And because they have are illegal, the manufacturing/ compounding is often clandestine, and much effort if made to destroy traceability to the manufacturer and supplier. Fake lot numbers and fake manufacturing locations are used, and the supplies are often transferred through many companies to confuse their origin. It took forensic accounting to track the source of anti-freeze-containing glycerol (which BTW happened to be China).

So while it's reasonbale to say that off-brands can be as good as or better than name-brands, it's foolhardy to say that counterfeits are "as good".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:25 PM

This is my understanding:

No-name labels from brand-name companies generally are of slightly lesser quality (failed QC). It's their way of getting $$$ from product they don't want to be associated with.

Store-brand products are made by brand-name companies to store-brand specification, so whatever quality the store brand specifies is what you get.

Off-brands are genuine product from, as you pointed out, lesser known companies. (I would guess it includes the unlicensed AIDS medications India was producing and selling to African countries.)

And counterfeits are the real bogus deal.

Did I miss anything ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize.

I'll tell you why.

We got into this situation because *I* said something that is intrinsically true, you can't pay someone more to make something than the value of their labour. Well, you could but you would go out of business really quickly.

The example I gave was that you couldn't hire lawyers at $200/hr to flip burgers because you wouldn't be able to sell the resulting burgers at $20 apiece. We then got into the whole argument about people being unable to buy what they produce (remember your bogus bowling ball argument.) Truth is that people that build Mercedes can aford to buy them, people that build Fords can as well. Not from one weeks pay but they are generally not out of reach. Realising she was loosing the argument again Rue brings up $130 Adidas trainers and the $5 a worker gets paid to make them. At last she has a situation where the cost of an item is so overwhelmingly more than the cost of production it MUST support her "luxury car workers drive economy cars, economy car workers ride bikes" analogy.

THAT was why we moved to questions of value because in this case there is no connection between the value of the labour that is done ($5) and the final cost of the item ($130.) Since the worker is paid in proportion to the value of his labour and not the sale price of the item they could in that case NEVER be paid enough to buy their own product.

Now Rue seems to think this is unfair. I pointed out that there are lots of brands of sneakers out there where the $5 value added by teh worker does not translate to $130 of final price. IE free from artificial marketing the worker makes enough to purchase the product of his labour.

Quote:

The problem is that there are several theories of "value". You both are using the same word to mean different things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)

Quote:
Intrinsic theories, as the name implies, hold that the price of goods and services is not a function of subjective judgements. An example is the labor theory of value which says that prices in a market economy are a function of how much labor was put into the production of a product.

Subjective theories hold that for an object to have economic value (a price), the object must be useful in satisfying human wants and it must be in limited supply. This is the foundation of the marginalist theory of value, of neoclassical economics. The marginal utility theory is not a normative theory of value, but simply an explanation of why things are priced as they are in a market economy.
I suspect that you follow one of the subjective theories of value. In your approach, increasing the subjective "demand" for a product through marketing increases the "value" of a product because it increases the price. Rue seems to hold to some form of "intrinsic" value theory.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No, I actually favor the intrinsic value model. The problem is that Rue choses whichever pleases her at the time. If we stick with intrinsic then my initial point is valid, the worker gets paid an amount that can't exceed the intrinsic value he adds to the product. Ie if the Asian kid adds $15 to the value of a sneaker then that's the most he could ever be paid to make it and the final cost of making the product ie it's intrinsic cost, is all it's really worth. The problem with that is it means guys that make BMW's can afford BMWs, guys that make Fords can afford Fords. You dont see full bicycle racks at Ford factories, Rues argument is bogus.

So with the sneaker argument she looks at wages which are governed by intrins

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:55 PM

I thought this was interesting....

If you find a store brand / off brand you like look for the manufacturer's name on the packaging. Store brands do not always use the same manufacturer in all areas and are also known to change manufacturers without warning consumers. For example, I LOVED the Winn Dixie store brand diapers. Then one day I noticed there was a change in the look and reliability of the diaper. I looked at an old box I had from the diapers I had purchased before I was storing items in my closet with and discovered the manufacturer was different. When they were being made by "Tyco" they were great and very near replicas of Huggies brand. Now that the manufacturer was changed in my area - I no longer liked them. I started looking at manufacturer named from then on. I discovered Tyco is also the maker of the Sam's Wholesale "Smiles" and other off brand/store brand diapers. I also discovered that diapers in one state by a store brand may be different than what is sold in another even though they have the same store brand name on them. I no longer think the stores brand name on the package is the important thing, now I am look at the fine print on the packaging to see who is making the diaper before I bite on the bargain pricehttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2Y6n6zdG_2sJ: www.minti.com/parenting-advice/6594/Check-those-Manufacturer-Names-on-
Store-Brands-before-you-purchase-diapers/+%22store+brand%22+%22off+brand%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

But basically, yes- counterfeits are the real bogus deal.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:42 PM

Fletch aka Asswipe

You're pissing me off. I specifically said they are NOT all cheap trainers. I made a very tedious, specific and lengthy argument as why the fucking not. This is the third time you've lied about my arguments. So to any more communication with you, asshole.

Rue:
(conclusion after long argument) Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.
Fletch:
I'm glad she finally agrees that at point of production these are all cheap trainers. Only taken her 2 weeks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:40 PM

Quote:
posted by Sigmanunki-

EDIT: I did reply to this, but have decided to edit it out. I did this because why my gov is more (or less) effective is exactly not the point and is exactly not what is being discussed. My gov has absolutely NOTHING to do with how effective your gov is. So, I deleted it because I have no inclination to get into the inevitable pissing contest about who's country is better. You had me for a little bit, though. Nice try, almost worked.

it wasnt necessarily my intention to get into a 'pissing contest' with you.. but you pretty much implied that America is less democratic then your home country. i asked why? its a fair question

Quote:
Complaining does exactly /nothing/. Since all "you" (seem to) do is complain, people will stop listening b/c that's all "you" do.

alright, well you dont know how active(or in-active) i am personally, so youre making an unfair assumption. personally i feel i do my share. besides.. how should i voice my discontent? i am fully aware of the saying 'actions speak louder then words'.. but action doesnt negate the 'words' in this instance, since politics is centered around debate. is that not part of the process, in order to persuade opinion?

Quote:
All complaining will do is back people against the wall and turn them off. They'll just dig in and not be willing to see another side b/c they've become very defensive. That's human nature. A great example of this is the "debate" in your country. Just look how polarized the entire thing is and how it resembles a screaming match with no-one actually listening *far* more than people actually debating.

ok.. but do you pretend that your country is any different? where are you from, the UK? considering your former PM was Blair, a Bush kiss ass, and now have Brown, an even worse Bush sympathizer.. i dont see where you get off telling us that our debate is fractured. remind me whats happening with the EU implementation? apparently yours isnt very effective either, unless you believe the British citizens want big brother socialism(in which case of course your getting what you want)

Quote:
In other words, you don't get a free pass to bitch about everything because you took a /small/ amount of time, one evening, every FOUR YEARS to vote. You actually got to do something. Sure, you /can/ /just/ bitch, but it is exactly meaningless if you don't get off your ass from time to time to actually make your voice heard. After all, how are your representatives going to know what you want if you don't tell them? A silent voice is a voice of approval to a politician.

im not sure why youre giving me this lecture.. i agree with you, change requires more then voiced discontent. maybe we should have clarified from the beginning that i didnt mean 'bitching' as in, sitting on my ass and running my mouth. i was more or less referring to my right as a citizen to dissent

Quote:
I contact my representative regarding several different things that are near and dear to me. How about you?

as do i.. i contact my congressman quite frequently. im also very envolved in promoting Ron Pauls candidacy, through groups like meetup.org and others. so im not just flapping my gums over here

Quote:
Also, you /are/ supporting this stuff. You are after all paying taxes, right? If not I'd really recommend that you start as I hear that they IRS isn't terribly pleasant.

if youve read through the Ron Paul thread, we may be on the verge of fixing our tax code, and returning to sound constitution money and fewer taxes. i do pay taxes.. but only because they are taken directly from my paycheck. i assume you pay taxes too dont you? socialism doesnt pay for itself

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch aka Asswipe

You're pissing me off. I specifically said they are NOT all cheap trainers. I made a very tedious, specific and lengthy argument as why the fucking not. This is the third time you've lied about my arguments. So to any more communication with you, asshole.

Rue:
(conclusion after long argument) Just b/c two things are made in the same place doesn't mean they're the same value - or even close.
Fletch:
I'm glad she finally agrees that at point of production these are all cheap trainers. Only taken her 2 weeks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Sig: Fletch2, I know you're not talking to me but you have failed to take into account Rue's answer to your question: what is a $5 sneaker "worth"? Her answer was: $5. You keep referring to that added $100 "value" but Rue's answer I think would be that added "value" doesn't exist. So to keep asking about that added value is to ask about something that Rue doesn't recognize.

If you notice it was him I was answering. Since you two tag team in here I'd assumed you'd confered on strategy. SigNY, your pal, your chum has assigned the opinion to you that you accept that a $5 sneaker is worth $5. If you still don't then please ream his ass out for misrepresenting your opinion.... dont take it personally he does that a lot.

Nevermind.....

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:30 AM

No Fletch2, we do not confer on strategy. Where it seems we tag-team, it's where we agree. Where we don't, we don't. Simple as that. ETA: MY guess is that Rue would say there is a material difference between the $5 trainer which is sold for $100, and the $1 trainer which is sold for $20.

But we still haven't resolved what "value" is. At times, you seem to be saying that it is the same as the price of an item, and at other times you seem to be saying that it is determined by the costs of the item. I suppose that you are trying to say that the "floor" or lowest value possible is fixed by the costs associated with production, but that the value can rise to any level above that depending on what the market will bear?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:31 PM

Fletch

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Rue, you missed the question mark and the end and the answer is no, thankyou I'm happily married

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:35 PM

Fletch

Fletch:
"Since you two tag team in here I'd assumed you'd confered on strategy. SigNY, your pal, your chum has assigned the opinion to you that you accept that a $5 sneaker is worth $5. If you still don't then please ream his ass out for misrepresenting your opinion.... dont take it personally he does that a lot.

Nevermind....."

Fletch:
"Rue, you missed the question mark"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:10 PM

And speaking of "Counterfeits: The Real Bogus Deal"

Quote:
British authorities issued an alert on Thursday after a batch of contaminated counterfeit versions of GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Sensodyne toothpaste was found. The discovery follows a series of similar fake toothpaste scares around the world. As in previous cases, the British discovery involved toxic levels of the chemical diethylene glycol, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said.

www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/12/britain.toothpaste.reut/index.html

BTW- I'm ready to discuss the concept of "value" whenever you are. Seeing as there are about six competing theories it should be an interesting discussion. We might even come up with something unique.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But we still haven't resolved what "value" is. At times, you seem to be saying that it is the same as the price of an item, and at other times you seem to be saying that it is determined by the costs of the item. I suppose that you are trying to say that the "floor" or lowest value possible is fixed by the costs associated with production, but that the value can rise to any level above that depending on what the market will bear?

.

Actually I'm looking at it the opposite way. A free market should establish the value of goods. Once that is established it sets the upper limit on what you can pay someone to make it.

Unfortunately both companies and workers have fixed costs bellow which they cannot operate, this is the cost base for the community in which they are based. A company in a low cost base country competing with a company in a high cost base country has a comparative advantage since they can afford to sell at far lower prices than the high costbase producer.

So, in the absence of tariffs or other market distortions the low cost base economy will always win out in any market where they directly compete. This is and will remain a problem for the US economy. Now the solutions proposed to address this are 1) innovate your way out (ie create markets in which you have no competitors and so effectively set the market rate) or 2) own the idea (use patents and IP to prevent low costbase producers from competing.)

1) doesn't seem to be happening and 2) only works if you can export the US idea of IP elsewhere since most places view patents in a different way to the US.

But to answer the question directly. Old fashioned economics is based on intrinsic value. When discussing the concept of a worker taking raw materials and creating wealth it is the intrinsic value of his product you are talking about. I favour this view of value since it's tangable and measurable.

However, the market is based on subjective value, which is why sneakers that cost $5 to make can sell at $130. Probably $100 of that value does not come from materials used or cost of production but instead from the subjective value added by the notion of a "brand." Companies spend millions promoting their brands through advertising and sponsorship. In doing so they distort the market in their favour (hey they call this activity "marketing" so it's not like they are hiding anything.)

In the old economic models the largest proportion of the "value" added to manufactured goods came from its production. Therefore wealth was created by the industrial worker when the product was made. However in the case of Rue's sneaker it could be argued that most of the "value" of the $130 sneaker is added by the advertising agency, designers and image consultants. It is they that persuade the market that the product is worth $100 more than a comparative competing product.

Rue's argument is that there is a "trickle down" effect in industrial production where by the maker of a premium car can only afford an economy car, the economy car worker a bike etc. In truth when you look at it BMW workers drive BMW's... and Fords, and Ford workers drive Fords... and bicycle makers drive Fords etc..

Her killa argument is that the kid in an asian sweatshop making $130 sneakers cant buy them, but as we've seen he actually adds perhaps $15 to the value of the item and he can afford to buy $15 sneakers. The Madison Avenue guy that takes $20 sneakers and makes the market want to pay $130 for them can afford $130 sneakers. So both can buy products for around the value that they add to it.

RUE

Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:23 PM

"China Not Sole Source of Dubious Food
By ANDREW MARTIN and GRIFF PALMER
Black pepper with salmonella from India. Crabmeat from Mexico that is too filthy to eat. Candy from Denmark that is mislabeled.

At a time when Chinese imports are under fire for being contaminated or defective, federal records suggest that China is not the only country that has problems with its exports.

In fact, federal inspectors have stopped more food shipments from India and Mexico in the last year than they have from China, an analysis of data maintained by the Food and Drug Administration shows.

In cases of recurrent problems, the F.D.A. may issue an import alert, which leads to additional scrutiny at the border. Last month, for instance, the F.D.A. issued not only the import alert for the Chinese fish, but also import alerts for Mexican cantaloupes and basmati rice from India, among others."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/business/12imports.html?pagewanted=p
rint

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:14 AM

Back on topic here for a moment.

http://weldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=69213

Thanks Dave, better late than never.
SOME progress, at least.

-F