I have seen some ludicrous statements made by forum moderators but this one took lunacy to Pluto tonight ! What is it about forum moderators ? Albeit this forum board member likes to post as a member. But it seems to me once the mod hat goes on it has a devastating effect on the grey matter under it. Check this out !
Part of a members posting.
“Why is the well-known fact that many thousands of people are killed and damaged by drugs every year somehow just swept under the carpet?”
The mod quoted the above quote and asked.
“Again show me some real evidence that this "well know fact" is true please. I really object to things being stated as factually accurate 100% true statements without offering any evidence to back up the claims.”
Try reading up one just one diabetes drug and I think the member is owed an apology.
“Glaxo announced Jan. 17 that it is taking a $3.5 billion charge to cover expenses linked to investigations and suits over Avandia. The reserve brings to $6.4 billion the amount the drugmaker has set aside in the past 12 months for legal costs tied to Avandia.
The latest settlement resulted from Glaxo’s move to resolve all Avandia cases brought by Joseph Zonies and Thomas Cartmell, two plaintiffs’ attorneys picked by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe in Philadelphia to lead a group steering the progress of more than 1,600 cases consolidated there. Zonies, of Denver, and Cartmell, of Kansas City, Missouri, didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Glaxo said in September it would stop promoting Avandia worldwide after regulators said the medicine would be withdrawn from Europe and sales would be limited in the U.S.
The company agreed last year to pay about $460 million to resolve about 10,000 suits accusing it of hiding Avandia’s heart attack risks. Facing 13,000 Lawsuits”
Well, ETYM may not be flogging drugs at the moment, but why are they defending the truly awful record of big pharma ?
Eddie
More on Avandia here
ETYM link here
7 comments:
ETYM is not a forum its a club for the DCUK dropouts.
A forum to me should be about debate and open discussion. Surely this is the way we can then learn, exchange information and make informed choices. It would appear that both DUK and now ETYM try to be everything to everybody. While I admire those for trying it is important to keep the balance right, and this in life is never an easy task.
I feel to an outsider looking in and carefully reading the various items that those who choose to take a reduced carb way do appear to have much better control over their bg numbers and surely this is what most, if not all of us want?
However, it must still remain an individuals choice.
With regards to what happened yesterday I do think the member deserved better treatment than she got, it appeared members were 'ganging up' on her and this is no way to treat anybody.
If we can be allowed to state our views, knowing not all may agree, at least it should lead to debate and thus learning and choice.
We are all individual.
We all have our own views.
Annie J
One member come out with a viewpoint. Several members have a different viewpoint.
That is not ganging up. That is the way of debate. Sometimes one or more people have an opinion, sometimes they dont.
What do you suggest? That if those who share an opposing viewpoint only allow the first person who comments to reply? Its not a dual you know!!!
The founders of this forum had a chance to do something fresh and innovative, they have become another diabetes.co.uk or DUK. Taking the safe route and pushing the sort of dietary information that has lead to the stats we see published by the NHS. The eat to your meter banner is an exercise in political correctness. It has already become a cakes and commiserations club, and will go the same way as Kenny boys, Carbos and the lowcarb forum.
The name of the forum is ridiculous, even the failed outfits had the common sense to include diabetes or diabetic in the name ! With so few newly diagnosed being offered a meter or test strips, and so many more being told not to test, eat to your meter is not going to be put into many search engines me thinks. It will not matter to many as long as it’s a comfortable place to hang out, and the trouble makers and those of independent thought quickly leave. Check out the carb count of almost all, check out the carb count of those holding HbA1c in the fours or low fives, and then compare that to what they are recommending to newbie’s. It’s a farce full stop. And this from a group of people who fought 24/7 against what they have so rapidly become. Tyrants and power struck bullies, straight out of the Cugila training school. How he must be laughing !
Eddie
They are debating. This is something you find difficult as you see it as personal if someone disagrees with you.
You used to champion them on DCUK if they debated with your "enemies" and now you are finding it difficult to understand that they also debate on ETYM.
“You used to champion them on DCUK if they debated with your "enemies" and now you are finding it difficult to understand that they also debate on ETYM.”
It is true I championed and admired the stance they took against lowcarb antis, and the ridiculous dietary information many pushed. They were staunch lowcarbers, but now push a diet only one of the board members could tolerate, and hold safe BG numbers. One mod stated recently she uses a single figure total of carbs some days, yet recommends 150 carbs a day as a start point for others. The people on that forum know only one in a hundred type two’s, not on insulin, can hold safe numbers on 150 carbs per day.
Why are the best controlled over there using less than half that amount per day ? Because it’s the only thing that’s works.
Eddie
Hey Annie J your comment 'We are all individual. We all have our own views.' I agree and we should be able to comment debate exchange views and then as an individual make our choice. some have much stronger views than others and do put their point across extremely well. We need to see both sides of things have the pros and cons put forward.
Post a Comment