General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Evil Organised Quality Standards

Started by Peter Bowditch · · Last activity · 68 posts · 1,617 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
29 August 2003
Last activity
2 September 2003
Original author
Peter Bowditch
Posts
68
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,617
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 68
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s934547.htm

    TGA audit reveals damning Pan evidence

    A secret auditor's report on Pan Pharmaceuticals has found "compelling
    and systematic evidence" of deception about the quality of its
    products.

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says the report was handed
    to the company's founder, Jim Selim, on the day production at Pan was
    shut down but it has remained secret until now.

    Pan's Sydney plant was investigated in February and April this year
    and by the end of April its operations were suspended.

    The auditor's report is a damning assessment which concludes that Pan
    products posed an alarming level of risk to public health.

    It found that products including sheep placenta, tuna oil and evening
    primrose oil were all released despite containing traces of metal.

    In two separate cases three years apart, cattle cartilage was
    substituted for shark cartilage, the audit found.

    It also found disturbing evidence of cross-contamination of drugs with
    antibiotics for animals.

    It says the company manipulated information on quality control testing
    to misrepresent the results.

    The TGA is not commenting on the findings in the lead-up to a meeting
    of creditors on Monday.

    A spokeswoman for the TGA says the Sydney plant has been investigated
    twice since the first audit.

    Creditors will vote next week on whether to put the company into
    liquidation or support a rescue plan being promoted by Mr Selim.

    The Federal Government says it is relieved findings of the
    investigation that led to the Pan Pharmaceuticals recall have been
    made public because they vindicate the TGA.

    The Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Trish Worth, says it should
    allay public suspicion that the TGA overreacted.

    "It is absolutely nothing short of a total disregard for public
    safety, I was absolutely horrified," she said.

    The Federal Opposition is calling on the TGA to release all 30 pages
    of the audit.

    The Shadow Minister for Consumer Protection and Health, Alan Griffin,
    says the public deserves to know exactly what happened.

    "What's been happening is the parliamentary secretary Trish Worth and
    the TGA have been hiding behind the fact that these documents are
    allegedly commercial inconfidence and the fact of the matter is it's
    about time the Government released these documents so the public is
    fully aware of what actually has occurred," he said.

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

  2. Quoted message said:

    From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
    Date: 8/28/2003 9:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Evil Organised Quality Standards

    We've seen them!

    Here:

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/809196.asp

    AND

    Here:

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/657566.asp#BODY

    It's in the archives.

    These are example of the quality standards, and the policing of their own.

    Anr then there is still the website from Peter with the three BOLD DESPICABLE
    AND MADE UP LIES.

    You would be the very last one to tell us about the quality standards as you
    are a repeated liar.

    That doesn't excuse the other wrongs, (*IF* therre were any??) but it is might
    hyprocrital of you to post anything about standards, when it has been proven
    you are a repeated liar.

    Jan

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
    but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
    Albert Einstein

  3. Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.
    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    --

    "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    AND MADE UP LIES.

    are a repeated liar.

    you are a repeated liar.

    Jan

    $ KaChing $53

  4. In said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Absolutely. Similarly, electricians need "standards" because they
    cannot be trusted to do what is right, bookkeepers need "standards"
    because they cannot be trusted etc., civil engineers need "standards"
    etc., teachers need "standards" etc., commercial kitchens need
    "standards" etc., day-care operators need "standards" etc. and
    so on for all sorts of things.

    Apparently, the manufacturers of "alternative medicines" are the
    only people on Earth who will instinctively do the right thing
    without being guided by the experience of others.

    --
    | Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
    | it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
    | for new products or new versions of existing products." |
    end

  5. In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Oh-ho, and am I to understand from your comment that in contrast you
    claim that alternative medicine practitioners CAN be trusted to do the
    right thing?

    Be careful with what you claim; you will be held to it.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  6. Wow! direct hit on a major button!
    "D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    In said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Absolutely. Similarly, electricians need "standards" because they
    cannot be trusted to do what is right, bookkeepers need "standards"
    because they cannot be trusted etc., civil engineers need "standards"
    etc., teachers need "standards" etc., commercial kitchens need
    "standards" etc., day-care operators need "standards" etc. and
    so on for all sorts of things.

    Apparently, the manufacturers of "alternative medicines" are the
    only people on Earth who will instinctively do the right thing
    without being guided by the experience of others.

    --
    | Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
    | it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
    | for new products or new versions of existing products." |
    end

  7. I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.
    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Oh-ho, and am I to understand from your comment that in contrast you
    claim that alternative medicine practitioners CAN be trusted to do the
    right thing?

    Be careful with what you claim; you will be held to it.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  8. --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Oh-ho, and am I to understand from your comment that in contrast you
    claim that alternative medicine practitioners CAN be trusted to do the
    right thing?

    Be careful with what you claim; you will be held to it.
    --
    Orac

    Quoted message said:

    I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    Pardon? Your credulity is showing.

    --Rich

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.

    Quoted message said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    Conventional med NEEDS "standards" because doctors and pharm companies
    cannot be trusted to do what is right.

    Oh-ho, and am I to understand from your comment that in contrast you
    claim that alternative medicine practitioners CAN be trusted to do the
    right thing?

    Be careful with what you claim; you will be held to it.


    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    No, I just know some, and they seem fairly representative of the Alt side of
    things. I have met many Conv's who won't ask for help when they are in too
    deep.
    One example, I know a NP, who has risked several peoples lives,with bad /
    wrong medical treatment. Were it not for the Alties who stepped in to stop
    her people would be dead now. This has happened more than once or twice. And
    this woman is a highly trained "professional" fully blessed by the Conv
    system..

    That's anecdotal evidence that cannot even be verified, since you don't
    give any details. We can't even tell if the NP mentioned was risking
    people's lives, because you don't give enough of the story. In other
    words, it's on par with "friend of a friend" variety of hearsay evidence.

    If you want to be taken seriously I'd suggest you produce some real
    evidence to support your claim that alties are more trustworthy to do
    the right thing than conventional doctors.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  11. "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.


    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that. It has
    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

  12. --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.


    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that. It


    has

    Quoted message said:

    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Just as knowledge is different from wishful thinking.

    --Rich

  13. In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.

    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that.

    In other words, you have no evidence--as I thought.

    Quoted message said:

    It has
    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".

    At least conventional medicine has mechanisms to examine such mistakes,
    imperfect and insufficient as these mechanisms are at present. I see no
    such mechanism for examining mistakes made by conventional practioners.
    And don't tell me they don't make mistakes. All humans make mistakes.

    Quoted message said:

    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Weaseling out of your claim by hiding behind the words "I think," eh?
    Well, I'm not surprised, given that you can't produce any evidence to
    back up your statement.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Rich Shewmaker said:

    --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.


    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that. It


    has

    Quoted message said:

    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Just as knowledge is different from wishful thinking.

    And hiding behind saying "I think" when a request for evidence to back
    up his assertion is a transparent and lame dodge.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  15. In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I would strongly suggest that you spend more time looking in your backyard
    before you [censored] about your neighbors.

    And I would strongly suggest that you consider not posting anecdotal
    evidence that doesn't provide enough detail to evaluate and can't be
    verified even if it did.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Rich Shewmaker said:

    --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce evidence
    so support your your claim above.


    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that. It


    has

    Quoted message said:

    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Just as knowledge is different from wishful thinking.

    And hiding behind saying "I think" when a request is made for evidence
    to back up his assertion is a transparent and lame dodge.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  17. It might be that I think that you are not worth the effort.
    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.

    OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce


    evidence

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    so support your your claim above.

    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that.

    In other words, you have no evidence--as I thought.

    Quoted message said:

    It has
    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".

    At least conventional medicine has mechanisms to examine such mistakes,
    imperfect and insufficient as these mechanisms are at present. I see no
    such mechanism for examining mistakes made by conventional practioners.
    And don't tell me they don't make mistakes. All humans make mistakes.

    Quoted message said:

    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Weaseling out of your claim by hiding behind the words "I think," eh?
    Well, I'm not surprised, given that you can't produce any evidence to
    back up your statement.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  18. Asswipe, I said "I think" , can you read?
    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Rich Shewmaker said:

    --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > In article <[email hidden]>,
    > "David" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    > > I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.
    >
    > OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce


    evidence

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > so support your your claim above.
    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that.


    It

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    has

    Quoted message said:

    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Just as knowledge is different from wishful thinking.

    And hiding behind saying "I think" when a request for evidence to back
    up his assertion is a transparent and lame dodge.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  19. This is a newsgroup. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that.
    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    David said:

    I would strongly suggest that you spend more time looking in your


    backyard

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    before you [censored] about your neighbors.

    And I would strongly suggest that you consider not posting anecdotal
    evidence that doesn't provide enough detail to evaluate and can't be
    verified even if it did.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  20. Poor dumb orac.
    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Rich Shewmaker said:

    --

    "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > In article <[email hidden]>,
    > "David" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    > > I think they are far more likely to be trustworthy.
    >
    > OK, then, I'm holding you to your assertion. Now please produce


    evidence

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > so support your your claim above.
    I think that time, and wider information availability will do that.


    It

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    has

    Quoted message said:

    become harder to cover-up "mistakes".
    If you have been reading my posts, you will have seen some of that.
    Also, a claim is different from an "I think".

    Just as knowledge is different from wishful thinking.

    And hiding behind saying "I think" when a request is made for evidence
    to back up his assertion is a transparent and lame dodge.
    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.