I do not believe in profiting from those that suffered like the rest of your inhuman things. I am the voice of the victims of O. My job is to make sure O NEVER returns to kill more.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
I'm with you Piper. I do not personally know any people who suffered horrific deaths due to O. However, I have had a family member who suffered because of an FDA approved drug which was later recalled. And regardless of whether we have had family member who have suffered, it doesn't change what is RIGHT or WRONG. It has nothing to do with legal standing, money, settlement, FDAs decsions, etc. We all know very well that if our loved one were in the dialysis center we would choose EPO, not O. Yet people here try to make money by foisting O onto others. That is WRONG. It is not that complicated people. Look deep into your hearts and you will admit this to yourself. O should not ever be allowed back for this CKD indication because EPO provides same efficacy without risk of Sudden Death by O.
I agree wholeheartedly. I may be rough in my tone here but I really am sick of Maxdad and his cronies carrying on and on as to why O should and will be returned to the market. I really do not think they have any idea what they are hoping for. They say many things have killed people and yes, they have, but does that justify the return of O? No, it does not.
Basically, they r saying the deaths were perfectly fine. I am rather shocked that people would feel that way but there r those type walking around I suppose. I will continue my harsh tone here and will not let up until we finally get news that O and AFFY r finished. I am certain that day is nearby, just a bit more patience.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Actually BOTH EPO AND PROCRIT have had fatalities across the entire life-cycle of use...Some hyper-reactions like Omontys but mostly cardio-vascular complications resulting in death...So given your argument they too should be pulled...and ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF DRUGS THAT ARE ON THE MARKET THAT HAVE HAD FATALITIES SHOULD BE PULLED AS WELL...Less than 2 weeks ago Acetaminephen was cited for 94 FATALITIES due to drug reaction (it's easy to access just google news Acetaminephen Fatalities)...AND those 94 joined a much larger list from liver and cardio-vascular related deaths.
The PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPLOITING THESE FATALITIES are YOU GUYS who just keep trying to destroy Affymax by recycling your DEATH-DEATH-DEATH comments as if Takeda and Affymax committed the HOLOCAUST...NOT!!! And it was most likely HUMAN ERROR by Fresenius Personnel...and you have to know that too....EXPLOITING THESE FATALITIES falls on THE SHORT SIDE HERE IN ALMOST EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY !!!
Just curious if you have ANY products made in China (e.g. Iphone, Ipad) . You know, those Chinese factories that have netting installed beneath the upper floors to stem the tide of suicides by depressed slave laborers. I bet you do. And of course you dont give a #$%$ about their suffering as you happily use those products since you are just short shares of this stock and want to profit off the misery of longs losing money.
On the remotest chance that you did suffer a personal loss you really should talk with an attorney...But you'll need to wait and sue Fresenius...case would have NO standing right now.
If you did NOT suffer a personal loss (as perverse as your posts have been that would be a very logical conclusion) then you need to seek professional mental health IMMEDIATELY because you're even more whacked out than GWP.
Maxbad knows nothing about the law. If you had a personal loss due to O, of course you have standing to sue. Products liability means manufacturer/supplier defendants. I would imagine you joinable defendants for an AFFY products liability/personal injury claim would be AFFY/Takeda, the manufacturers, Nektar/Lonza, the clinic and the prescribing physician. There could then be crossclaims among the defendants for indemnity depending upon the proportion of fault. These products liability claims can be expensive to defend and damages amounts depend upon the plaintiff's unique circumstances. Generally plaintiffs try to sue as many defendants as possible to take advantage of joint and several liability as well as multiple insurers.