GlaxoSmithKline Signs $300 Million Deal With Big Pharma

[Ninurta]

@"Ninurta", I just took my title from the article title. Confusing? Ask them.

As for the dangers: People need to read the fine print, which most don't; they may not realize what all they are "selling". I know it's not the company's fault; they put it there in black and white, but people don't take the time to read pages and pages of legal disclaimers.

And that is on the user - we've been told over and over again for generations now to read the fine print, yet some folks will still fail to do so. Maybe it's their attention span. I read all of it, not just enough of it to scare me, and it was written in clear, understandable language. There's no excuse but laziness for NOT reading it.

As for the dangers of using our DNA in the pharmaceutical industry, you would have had to hear some of the stories told by insiders who work in these type of labs to realize what they are doing.  I'm talking about the programs that go on underground, not things the "normal" public would hear about. According to the whistle-blowers, they take a person's DNA and mix it with all kinds of other life forms just to see what the result would be. Sometimes it's not pretty. There is an island off all to itself where some of these experiments take place, and also underground bases.

Again, I don't see the dangers to me in that. At best, with the information provided by my DNA test, they could, for example, give my steel gray eyes to a gerbil or the like, and I don't know WHY they would want to do that, but some folks are just plain weird. As far as I know, there were no unique mutations found in my DNA - in other words, the markers tested can be found in thousands of other people. The only thing unique to me is the combination of markers that made me to be me, and not a different human. In other words, there is no new or groundbreaking DNA to be found in my genome that can't be found in thousands of others, which I don't see as sufficient reason to withhold information from myself in the interests of protecting humanity, or clones, or mutants.

And I can assure you, if they do find a better way to treat diseases, it will be left out of the reports and swept under the rug.
I watched a documentary with a man who used to work in a lab for a pharmaceutical company several years ago. He said he found a cure for cancer, I believe it was (or some other life-threatening disease), and when he turned it over to his boss, his boss told him to destroy the evidence he had found. He told him what kept the lab in business was "hunting" a cure, not "finding" a cure.

While I can't doubt that individual's veracity, I can't find the sense in the logic, either, especially if it is predicated on making money. Most people will pay, and pay very, very well to keep from dying. Now, if one has cancer, is he more likely to pour money into research that may, someday long after he is dead, find a cure for what killed him, or is he more likely to mortgage everything he has for a CURE NOW that will save him? While I can't doubt what he said, neither can I find the rationale if making money is the motivation.

My "guess" is that they will find a better way to treat some ailments, but these will have side affects that create something else that needs medication, just like they do now. They MUST have a way to keep pushing the pills on us for this or that to stay in business.

It's all a money racket. They don't care about making us well.

Yeah, I get a kick out of the TV commercials for drugs that say "we can treat this specific ailment with this drug" in the first 3 seconds, followed by 27 seconds of "and this is all the ways this drug will kill or permanently damage you". That's one of the reasons I stay away from doctors and drugs now!

.