So, is Eli Lilly milking cancer? I would say false. I don't think they're doing it deliberately. I just think they see rBGH as a money maker in its own right. At least for now. They probably justify it by claiming any association between rBGH and breast cancer is unsubstantiated, as Monsanto did before it sold it to them.
Oh trust me: from monsanto to pfizer, from bayer to eli, all these corporations have very competent biochemists and researchers and they know damn well the link between stuff they produce like modifed growth hormones and estrogen drugs and pills and a whole bunch of diseases from cancer to hormonal etc...
It's better for their bottom line 1. they make money with the drugs 2. they make money with the cancers and other diseases by providing drugs to patients
You are really iluded to think they are common decent folk and won't do anything shady for profit.
Do I think I am deluding myself? I don't think so, but I'm always willing to change my mind.
In this case, I don't think Lilly management went to bed at night thinking of ways they could deliberately give women breast cancer. I think they just don't care ... if a product they make is harmful to women. As long as it's profitable. That does not make them decent folk in my mind.
I saw that NYTs article on cheese ... the USDA promoting it while also recommending limiting its consumption.
We have the USDA we vote for. We accept the influence of commodity producers, such as the National Dairy Council, when we vote.
Besides, increased consumption of a commodity (as well as government spending) bolsters farmers and boosts GDP which creates jobs and keeps our economy growing. These are also things Americans vote for.
Still, I think it's a great article in that it reveals the influence of marketing.
If most Americans don't want the USDA selling cheese, then most Americans would not remain silent at the polls.
We live in a country where those whose votes are in the minority, or those who choose not to vote, both agree to abide by the will of those whose votes are in the majority. You may not like what the USDA is doing, but most Americans, by virtue of their vote, do.
The January Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to politically spend as they like* is a reflection of how Americans vote. Most Americans have been voting to protect corporations' (Dairy Industry) influence in government (USDA).
I think that Eli Lilly is totally aware of the link b/tw rBGH and cancer development and is "milking" it for profitability. Like your comment just above this one, Bix!
15 comments:
So, is Eli Lilly milking cancer? I would say false. I don't think they're doing it deliberately. I just think they see rBGH as a money maker in its own right. At least for now. They probably justify it by claiming any association between rBGH and breast cancer is unsubstantiated, as Monsanto did before it sold it to them.
Think Before You Pink
I was going to say true but it seemed too easy. I guess I just don't want to think people are capable of such things.
"I don't think they're doing it deliberately"
Oh trust me: from monsanto to pfizer, from bayer to eli, all these corporations have very competent biochemists and researchers and they know damn well the link between stuff they produce like modifed growth hormones and estrogen drugs and pills and a whole bunch of diseases from cancer to hormonal etc...
It's better for their bottom line 1. they make money with the drugs 2. they make money with the cancers and other diseases by providing drugs to patients
You are really iluded to think they are common decent folk and won't do anything shady for profit.
Have you red the news today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html
Do I think I am deluding myself? I don't think so, but I'm always willing to change my mind.
In this case, I don't think Lilly management went to bed at night thinking of ways they could deliberately give women breast cancer. I think they just don't care ... if a product they make is harmful to women. As long as it's profitable. That does not make them decent folk in my mind.
I saw that NYTs article on cheese ... the USDA promoting it while also recommending limiting its consumption.
We have the USDA we vote for. We accept the influence of commodity producers, such as the National Dairy Council, when we vote.
Besides, increased consumption of a commodity (as well as government spending) bolsters farmers and boosts GDP which creates jobs and keeps our economy growing. These are also things Americans vote for.
Still, I think it's a great article in that it reveals the influence of marketing.
I didn't vote for this! Most Americans don't want the USDA selling cheese!!!
If most Americans don't want the USDA selling cheese, then most Americans would not remain silent at the polls.
We live in a country where those whose votes are in the minority, or those who choose not to vote, both agree to abide by the will of those whose votes are in the majority. You may not like what the USDA is doing, but most Americans, by virtue of their vote, do.
The January Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to politically spend as they like* is a reflection of how Americans vote. Most Americans have been voting to protect corporations' (Dairy Industry) influence in government (USDA).
* Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
I don't believe in voting. This whole system of government is all screwed up anyway.
More power to you. Well, actually, more power to me.
I think that Eli Lilly is totally aware of the link b/tw rBGH and cancer development and is "milking" it for profitability.
Like your comment just above this one, Bix!
I just don't see things that simply. It's usually a lot more complicated than that. I would see that as being the case here as well.
shaun
True. I'm with the first Anonymous; they've got highly trained, highly paid biochemists to know what their product does.
And I'm borrowing this for my blog :)
I think they're just a big company and bottom line is about the almighty dollar. How can we tell which milk has that hormone in it? ;) peace
Organic milk is supposed to be rBGH-free.
Although all milk has IGF-1 in it (a chemical thought to raise cancer risk) rBGH milk just has more of it.
Some non-organic milk is rBGH-free too, but when a company (Oakhurst Dairy) tried to put that label on it Monsanto sued them.
When DOESN'T Monsanto sue someone? I really think they get off on it.
Post a Comment