Reply to comment

Anonymous's picture

I have read a fair amount of Jock Coats in my time. He may not mean to be supporting profits before people but the outcomes of his way of thinking decidedly are. It was the essential tenet of Classical Liberalism that the economy must thrive irrespective of the human cost. The market would winnow out wheat from chaff. The results of such thinking can be found in Dickens.

Are you really saying that Nutt's judgement in one case should not be taken into account when thinking about his other "independent" statements. The issue here is how much he is/was being paid to downplay the dangers of certain drugs to further  the aims of corporate expansionism. About how safe clinical judgements are if driven by profiteers etc. Can we really trust anything the Pharmas have to say via their spokesmen (like Nutt?) on safety issues?

If Nutt is wrong on Prozac et al, then how wrong is he on everything else? If he seems prepared to try and bury evidence in relation to Prozac, what other evidence would he be prepared to bury?

Personally I am amazed he got away with his double dealing for so long.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
To check whether you are human and not a spam-bot of some kind please type in the two words in the image below:
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp  Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Printed (hosted) by M5Hosting , San Diego, CA 92122, USA. Published and Promoted by Jock Coats , OXFORD, OX3 0FF. The views expressed are those of Jock Coats and any other contributors, and not M5Hosting. Developed using the Drupal Content Management System on Debian GNU/Linux servers. Theme by Jock Coats, from a heavily modified Drupal Zen template.