?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005, 04:41 pm

The company I work for is offering flu shots since there have been so many bugs going around lately (pretty much everyone here and everyone I know has been off for several days in the last couple of months because of them). I figured I'd like to know what was in the sodding thing before I let someone squirt something into my arm that had been tested on animals, tested on third world children, the usual (perhaps minimal) ethical concerns I try to apply to my decisions.
Can our HR person get the information? Can she hell, she's being fobbed off (and not happy about it). The company offering the innoculations hasn't even gone to the trouble of finding this information out and is claiming that in order to do so, requests would have to be made via the freedom of information act as the producing company does not make the information freely available because of the risk of terrorist acts by activists.

This to me says either
a) The company offering the innoculations is telling a porkie.
or
b) Holy crap does the vaccination producer ever go nuts with the unethical activities. They inject animals with the stuff and then stick the *animals* into third world children, before then shooting them. Because if they were innocent of that crap they'd be singing it from the rooftops.
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:04 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

Been there and done it already, or at least one version of it.

I know theres a certain hypocracy to me, as a meat eater, worrying about animal testing (though my primary concern is that the company its sourced from is Eli Lilly or a similarly satanic bunch with a disregard for human life that would make Hitler [1] shudder) but as I've mentioned before, I'm comfortable with hypocracy. Asides from which, I've always leaned towards the side of the debate that considers animal testing to be cruel and pretty much pointless.
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:17 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

Oh I know, I'm just weighing up the free healthcare against not being able to look my rabbits in the eye when I got home afterwards.

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:21 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

Damnit, I meant to put in the footnote
[1] I invoke Godwin's law on myself.

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:07 pm (UTC)
bastun_ie

I choose "A".

Primarily.

Possibly with a little of column "B" thrown in for good measure.

The Freedom of Information Act does not apply in any way to private companies, only to government departments and public bodies and certain private bodies who receive public funding.

But it's amazing how often people will shut up when told "We can't do that because of the [insert law we've heard of or even just made up] Act."

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:20 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

I thought that might be the case alright, though one would assume that given the relative prevalence of animal testing they wouldn't be so reluctant to release the information - most folks accept that its necessary for pharmaceuticals (though I myself am inclined to disagree). Rubbing lipstick in a rabbits eyes on the other hand is the kind of stupidity that raises the ire of the activists. For that matter, since everyone *knows* [1] that animal testing goes on in pharmaceutical companies, it seems daft not to admit it.

[1] Of course, people *know* a lot of stupid crap, like immigrants getting phones when they get off de boat but you know what I mean.

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:15 pm (UTC)
socmot

A. I say again, A.

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 04:22 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

I'm going to take a wild guess at
"We saw the hysteria about flu shots in the states so what we did was hire some people with certificates in medicine from I.N Ternet University to stick needles in people so we can give them the cheapest jab we can find."
(Deleted comment)

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 07:33 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat

There are certain companies though with histories so dodgy I want nothing to do with them. Eli Lilly is one of them and though I didn't make a big deal about it, one of the reasons I left my old job is the amount of business we did with them. They *have* tested these things on third world people, to the detriment of those involved, they've refused to accept responsibility for the deaths, chronic illness and mutation of tens of thousands of people in a region of India where one of their plants spilled millions of gallons of waste into the water supply. They're fucks basicly and I avoid their products where humanly possible.

Fri, Oct. 7th, 2005 08:52 am (UTC)
bastun_ie

And yes most likely it has been tested on animals but I doubt third world children.

I dunno - (the company that is now) Glaxo Wellcome tested 4-in-1 vaccines (that didn't work) on Irish orphans and children being placed for adoption without parental knowledge or consent...

Thu, Oct. 6th, 2005 06:14 pm (UTC)
wyvernfriend

reminds me, I should go do that myself soonish