Are you actually asking why, despite the possibility of severe negative consequences, people sometimes do bad things?
Oh Oh Oh!! I know!! Pick me!!
PROFITS!!!
3 Likes
Iām sorry, we were looking for either Chicks or The Lulz. But thanks for playing.
6 Likes
Limp Bizkit did it all for the nookieā¦
1 Like
Exactly, if the lawsuit(Vioxx) ranged in the realm of 4.85 billion and the profits received in 4 years were 11 billion. Where is the deterrent? http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/merck-vioxx
Something from that quack Mercola. Dr. Mercola's Censored Library (Private Membership) | Dr. Joseph Mercola | Substack
Are you suggesting that said quack is not a quack?
Yeah, there NO WAY a loss of $2 billion in active revenue stream + a 30% crash in total market value + an $5 billion dollar lawsuit is a deterrentā¦ $38 billion dollars is small potatoes 
1 Like
Not so in the case of Vioxx.
Not when a profit of 11 billion in 4 years is attainable.
So you never learned math either huh
1 Like
Why is he a quack? Because he recommends alternative healthcare as opposed to the āhealthcareā system we have in this country.
New analysis questions whether multi-billion-dollar settlements with pharma actually deter | Emory University School of Law | Atlanta, GA An Emory University paper on the subject.
Here you go Zep. A little edification-
$11B < $27B
Where was this 20 years ago when California passed Prop 215?
Things happen when they happen. The cannabis industry has had to move away from the paisley draped hippy shit and start looking more like a viable business interest than something being run out of the back of a Vanagon to attract the type of talent and capital that actually makes things happen.
Of course theyāre going to keep the tie-dyed holistic stuff on the front end for the alternate medicine/stoner crowd.
Obscure point of interest- I dropped acid and partied with the- at the time president- of NORML at a Grateful Dead concert in like '94 or '95.
1 Like
Youād think Merck would have learned from Vioxxand Fosamax that aggressive marketing can only hide emerging risks for so long. It didnāt. http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/6-drugs-whose-dangerous-risks-were-buried-so-big-pharma-could-make-money
Big Pharma was behind the intiial push to keep marijuana from becoming illegal. Why? Because they knew it worked and they could not compete. It wasnāt until the writing was on the wall that they became interested in studying it. If you canāt beatāem, joināem.