AN
Haha, glad to hear I wasn't the only one!!
Maybe we've just come to expect 'will be shown at a later date' or something! I did think it sounded a bit blunt, in a funny sort of way.
lol indeed, straight talking from the BBC
What will we have tommorow
"Now on BBC1 (some post watershed drama), which contains some swearing and some fighting right from the start"
Andrew
Founding member
Asa posted:
DAS posted:
Classic anno there: "...the schedule has changed, so One Foot in the Grave won't be on". The emphasis on "won't be one" was brilliant. Even made my non-geek housemate laugh out loud.
Haha, glad to hear I wasn't the only one!!
Maybe we've just come to expect 'will be shown at a later date' or something! I did think it sounded a bit blunt, in a funny sort of way.
lol indeed, straight talking from the BBC
What will we have tommorow
"Now on BBC1 (some post watershed drama), which contains some swearing and some fighting right from the start"
MO
The event is a real tragedy...
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
BBC WORLD posted:
Jaimé Alexandéz posted:
Sorry to be awful here but I'm fed up of hearing the wife of that medicine bloke telling us he looked like "the elephant man".
It's consequently been used in every single bloody bulletin on all the channels.
It's consequently been used in every single bloody bulletin on all the channels.
The event is a real tragedy...
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
MO
*****.
Good argument!
BBC LDN posted:
Moz posted:
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
*****.
Good argument!
PE
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
Pete
Founding member
Moz posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Moz posted:
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
MO
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
Hymagumba posted:
Moz posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Moz posted:
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
DO
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
There are no words to describe you.
Moz posted:
Hymagumba posted:
Moz posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Moz posted:
No, the event isn't a tragedy - it's just what sometimes happens. When you're trialling a drug, sometimes things go wrong, what else is the point of trialling them! Just greedy people getting their come-uppence! They knew the risk - now they're the elephant man! Ha Ha!
*****.
Good argument!
as was yours until you ruined it with anti-capitalist nonsense
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
There are no words to describe you.
GS
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Moz posted:
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
BB
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
MO
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
That's a better argument. Well done!
EDIT: However, I'm not sure about your assertion that trialists are only compensated for their loss of earnings...
A very well paid backpacker if his loss of earnings for 2 weeks are £2,500!
BBC LDN posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
That's a better argument. Well done!
EDIT: However, I'm not sure about your assertion that trialists are only compensated for their loss of earnings...
BBC News posted:
One antipodean, Xavier Walsh, said: "We got paid £2,500 for 15 days in a hospital.
A very well paid backpacker if his loss of earnings for 2 weeks are £2,500!
DO
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
That's a better argument. Well done!
EDIT: However, I'm not sure about your assertion that trialists are only compensated for their loss of earnings...
A very well paid backpacker if his loss of earnings for 2 weeks are £2,500!
You're a complete ******* *****.
Moz posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
I wasn't being anti-capitalist, I'm all for capitalism, but those who engage in it must realise that it's occasionally a risky business. I'm sure those people who took this ultimate risk knew there was a risk and accepted it. I've no sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm against what they've done.
Its one thing to say "these things happen", and quite another to suggest that their bad luck is fair and deserved punishment for something they have done.
Exactly. I don't know what naive view you have of clinical trials, but people enter into them on the understanding that the risk of harm or distress are extremely low. It is not the case that people submit themselves to be completely vulnerable lab rats in exchange for a few pounds; rather, the understanding is that they will be constantly monitored and checked up on to ensure that the very earliest signs of complications, they will be immediately removed from the trials and given remedial care.
We live in a civilised society where it is not permissible for anybody to expect such horrors from a clinical trial, and while it is fair to say that these people are participating in a trial, and that one should expect a degree of fallibility, nobody can reasonably be expected to think that they might have to suffer the extreme consequences that we've heard described in this particular incident.
I'm also lost as to where you get the idea that these are "greedy people" - pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to offer large sums to triallists, and that is specifically to prevent any possibility of poor or "greedy" persons from putting themselves at unacceptable risk in exchange for money. The only money that companies are permitted to pay out for clinical trials is a compensatory amount to cover loss of earnings during the trial. Independent checks are regularly carried out to verify that payments made meet that requirement.
So I'm afraid your whole argument has fallen apart. These people didn't deserve what happened to them. They would have entered into the trial on the understanding that they would be - within a reasonable degree - protected from significant harm. Money can't have been their motivation as there are clear safeguards to prevent people from profiteering from clinical trials. So just how much of a ******* are you to decree that these so-called "greedy" people deserve the horrific fate that befell them?
Your obvious ignorance on the clinical trials system in this country, and your despicable assertion that these people deserved the pain that they're going through - either because of their own greed, or through their own ignorance of what was to come - are what combined to form the opinion in my mind that was encapsulated with the single word: "*****."
Judging by others' responses, I'd say that I'm not alone in holding that opinion.
That's a better argument. Well done!
EDIT: However, I'm not sure about your assertion that trialists are only compensated for their loss of earnings...
BBC News posted:
One antipodean, Xavier Walsh, said: "We got paid £2,500 for 15 days in a hospital.
A very well paid backpacker if his loss of earnings for 2 weeks are £2,500!
You're a complete ******* *****.