Bayer (Phamaceutical Company) Laces Drugs With HIV - Gets Caught

I can understand why people are upset and why Bayer is settling, VERY bad PR, but I don't think they did it to be malicious. You people who think they did it on purpose need to get a hobby

Man...did you watch the video?!?! They KNEW the blood was infected. So yes, they did it on purpose. Does that not click in your head. They knew the blood was infected with HIV, so they dumped it overseas instead of taking a loss. So yeah, I'd say that qualifies for doing it on purpose. Wow, your reply really made you sound ignorant. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by MrChipps

I can understand why people are upset and why Bayer is settling, VERY bad PR, but I don't think they did it to be malicious. You people who think they did it on purpose need to get a hobby

Man...did you watch the video?!?! They KNEW the blood was infected. So yes, they did it on purpose. Does that not click in your head. They knew the blood was infected with HIV, so they dumped it overseas instead of taking a loss. So yeah, I'd say that qualifies for doing it on purpose. Wow, your reply really made you sound ignorant. Good luck with that.

I'm terribly sorry you haven't had time to read the other posts which clearly show there was no known causative agent for HIV until 1984, and no way to test for the presence of HIV until 1985. I'm also sorry that this doesn't "click in your head" as a dead giveaway that there was no way to know these blood products were, indeed, infected. I'm also very sorry for everyone who thinks that when 400 people become ill out of tens of thousands who received these blood products, this is not exactly pandemic. It's a horrible thing, for sure, but again, it's not like Bayer had the mindset "let's infect people" or that they even knew for sure it WAS infected. I'm sure they knew that there was a higher RISK that this blood had a problem, and I'm sure they didn't want to lose the money. It's horrible, but that's the American way, is it not? Blood for money? Again, I'm not condoning what they did, but I'm also very shocked that you people would take it so far as to try to rewrite the history of AIDS. That's just humourous.

MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Originally posted by MrChipps

I can understand why people are upset and why Bayer is settling, VERY bad PR, but I don't think they did it to be malicious. You people who think they did it on purpose need to get a hobby

Man...did you watch the video?!?! They KNEW the blood was infected. So yes, they did it on purpose. Does that not click in your head. They knew the blood was infected with HIV, so they dumped it overseas instead of taking a loss. So yeah, I'd say that qualifies for doing it on purpose. Wow, your reply really made you sound ignorant. Good luck with that.

I'm terribly sorry you haven't had time to read the other posts which clearly show there was no known causative agent for HIV until 1984, and no way to test for the presence of HIV until 1985. I'm also sorry that this doesn't "click in your head" as a dead giveaway that there was no way to know these blood products were, indeed, infected. I'm also very sorry for everyone who thinks that when 400 people become ill out of tens of thousands who received these blood products, this is not exactly pandemic. It's a horrible thing, for sure, but again, it's not like Bayer had the mindset "let's infect people" or that they even knew for sure it WAS infected. I'm sure they knew that there was a higher RISK that this blood had a problem, and I'm sure they didn't want to lose the money. It's horrible, but that's the American way, is it not? Blood for money? Again, I'm not condoning what they did, but I'm also very shocked that you people would take it so far as to try to rewrite the history of AIDS. That's just humourous.

MFP

Horrible response. You are now playing both sides to fit your ideas. You condemn others for make statements about things they cannot know, but isn't that what you're doing in defense? You have dodge the major issues this whole thread and attack only on vague slips in peoples replies. You just seem to either hate others opinions, or you are just married to the idea that medicine is perfect. What about the human factors?

Horrible response. You are now playing both sides to fit your ideas. You condemn others for make statements about things they cannot know, but isn't that what you're doing in defense? You have dodge the major issues this whole thread and attack only on vague slips in peoples replies. You just seem to either hate others opinions, or you are just married to the idea that medicine is perfect. What about the human factors?

So by providing evidence that there was no knowledge of HIV's causative agent or a test to show it's presence until 1985, outside the scope of this drug being distributed, I'm somehow "married to the idea that medicine is perfect" ? I said I expect that Bayer used tainted blood, but I also don't think that it's something they did knowing it was AIDS. They probably assumed there were probably non-chronic conditions that would occur that they could write off as side effects. I highly doubt Bayer had the foresight to identify an unknown virus, develop a test for it, and then push the drug out. I wasn't aware Bayer was in the business of psychic powers.

Again, I'm sure Bayer knew something was wrong, just not AIDS. I think it's a bit absurd for people to come on here and say that Bayer infected "tons" of people with AIDS. At most, there were 400 people, of course those are the ones we know of, there may have been more. However, take into account this was out of tens of thousands of people all over the world receiving the drug.

MFP

I just find it strange that instead of sympathizing with the idea that they did something wrong, no matter how cogniciant they may or may have not been (especially when someone says their brother passed from the disease), it just makes you look cold and hollow. Of course people jump to conclusions, especally when their emotions are involved, that doesn't give you the right to bash people because you have the ability to see the wider picture and subvtle intangibles. You just seem to answer with more anger than compassion. Enough said. AAC

BTW, it has nothing to do with the fact that aids wasn't around yet, this is retrospect, but they still knew something was suspicious, that's at the very least.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I just find it strange that instead of sympathizing with the idea that they did something wrong, no matter how cogniciant they may or may have not been (especially when someone says their brother passed from the disease), it just makes you look cold and hollow. Of course people jump to conclusions, especally when their emotions are involved, that doesn't give you the right to bash people because you have the ability to see the wider picture and subvtle intangibles. You just seem to answer with more anger than compassion. Enough said. AAC

BTW, it has nothing to do with the fact that aids wasn't around yet, this is retrospect, but they still knew something was suspicious, that's at the very least.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

I realise it may make me sound cold or hollow, but I also think this is a situation of wrong place and wrong time more than a malicious attack. I feel sorry that the roulette wheel stopped at the wrong place for the victims, but I also kind of see Bayer's side, to an extent. At the time they produced the product, the most they probably expected to go wrong were mild side effects, perhaps an easily treatable infection. There is no way they coud have anticipated HIV, considering there was little to no knowledge of it at the time.

I can understand why Bayer settled out of court. It would be a PR nightmare for this to go to court, even if they were found innocent. It would forever be a scar on their record to people like some who have posted on this thread who see anything with "Inc." after their name as demonic and automatically guilty in every respect. I know corporation do a lot of bad things, but we need them. If we survived only on small mom and pop operatons, many people would go without due to high costs of medical supplies and the like.

MFP

doc...
I just don't know what else anyone can tell you or how much more evidence anyone can give. You have asked questions and people have given you answers however you choose to either ignore them or disregard them.

You obviously are set in your ways. You will defend these criminals to the end. So unless you have further information to provide us with, outside of "AIDS wasn't known about until 1985", perhaps you should take your own advice and

:sigh: I'm just not going to post on this thread anymore.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I'm terribly sorry you haven't had time to read the other posts which clearly show there was no known causative agent for HIV until 1984, and no way to test for the presence of HIV until 1985.

Maybe I'm not gathering my information correctly, but I think I posted something earlier that had a timeline. If someone can clear up the exact dates when and where HIV was originally created, I'd appreciate it.

Here's a:

Short History of Secret US Human Biological Experimentation

1969: Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.

1970: Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.

1970: United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.

1975: The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).

1977: Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.

1978: Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.

more..

The Virus Cancer Program (1968-1980)

In 1969 the military biowarfare experts predicted that a biological agent would be developed within a decade that would have a devastating effect on the immune system and for which there would be no treatment. (For details of this congressional testimony, Google: Donald M MacArthur + biowarfare.)

The VCP had a keen interest in acquiring "information and materials from carefully selected patients suffering from immunodeficiency diseases" (1972;318). This is made clear in a 1973 Progress Report (p249) from the University of Minnesota entitled, "The search for tumor virus related information in human immunodeficiency patients with cancer" The researchers proposed "continuation of studies linking immunodeficency, cancer, and oncogenic viruses."

As biowarfare expert MacArthur predicted, new cancer-causing monster viruses (like HIV) were created by the VCP which had a deadly effect on the immune system. In one experiment recorded in the 1973 Report (p169), later published in Cancer Research in 1974, newborn chimps were taken away from their mothers at birth and weaned on milk from cancer virus-infected cows. Some of the chimps sickened and died with two diseases that had never been observed in chimpanzees. The first was Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (later known as the "gay pneumonia" of AIDS); the second was leukemia, a cancer of the blood.

More info on:

The Birthplace Of AIDS

One should look into the The Virus Cancer Program (1968-1980) with it's Biological Warfare (HIV) a little deeper, from what I've read so far there's overwhelming information available that it's impossible to ignore. I'd like to research more but it's going to require long nights of reading/connecting dots.

Originally posted by mecheng
doc...
I just don't know what else anyone can tell you or how much more evidence anyone can give. You have asked questions and people have given you answers however you choose to either ignore them or disregard them.

You obviously are set in your ways. You will defend these criminals to the end. So unless you have further information to provide us with, outside of "AIDS wasn't known about until 1985", perhaps you should take your own advice and

:sigh: I'm just not going to post on this thread anymore.

The following questions I asked have yet to be answered, mecheng:

So, remind me again how Bayer could have known that there was HIV in the medication from 1978 - 1985 as the video suggests?

How could anyone taking the Factor VII or other drug pinpoint their infection to that drug specifically?

HIV can be sexually transmitted. Did they have any unprotected sex?

HIV can be spread through contact with several contaminated fluids. Did they have contact with someone who was later found to be HIV+ in the hospital or otherwise?



See, we in the medical profession use this thing called the "scientific method". There must be a provable, testable link between the cause and effect. Sure, there probably was something in that Factor VIII. Was it HIV? Maybe. Without a pathology rep ort or some sort of proof, I don't buy it. If I just took a leap of faith like you guys are doing, then my medical career would be a joke. I would have patient dying left and right because I guess lasics won't affect someone with low urine output, cause some guy I read a post by online said so. But, the truth is, it would hurt them. The same goes for this Bayer issue. Is it likely there was something in the supplement? Sure. Is there any way at that point in time that Bayer could have known it was HIV and would cause a chronic condition in a few hundred people? No.

If 15 years ago, a small corn farmer in Nebraska accidently contaminated his corn with a prion he did not know about and had no way of testing for, and then sold it in the surrounding area, and then we look back with our new technology and test a frozen sample and see there was a prion disease in it, should we lock that farmer up, or chalk it up to bad luck and lack of knowledge?

MFP

Eud, I'm sorry, but this thread is not about the "man-made" HIV "conspiracy". That is a whole issue with it's own holes and problems. We are talking about the actual, factual provable HIV which was first identified by Gallo in 1984. Please take your posts to a thread dealing with that exact conspiracy. I'm not interested in the circular logic the "whale.to" site has to offer.

MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
...I said I expect that Bayer used tainted blood, but I also don't think that it's something they did knowing it was AIDS. They probably assumed there were probably non-chronic conditions that would occur that they could write off as side effects.

Question for you, bsl4doc...this is real simple...would you prescribe tainted blood products to your patients knowing full well that they were tainted by an unknown agent and not knowing for certain if any possible side-effects would cause bodily harm? Yes or no will suffice as there is no grey area here.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
...At most, there were 400 people, of course those are the ones we know of, there may have been more. However, take into account this was out of tens of thousands of people all over the world receiving the drug.

So...in your opinion, these are acceptable losses? And of those tens of thousands who received the tainted products...how many of them do you think are truly informed and have the knowlege to see that if they are infected with the HIV virus that Bayer may have been the cause? I'm getting the impression that you chose the medical field for reasons beyond human care or you're just not getting it. While I agree that the title of this thread is just wrong, Bayer should be held accountable if evidence arises showing that they knowingly sold tainted products to cushion losses. But innocence until guilt has been proven should remain the norm.

On a side note, I found the video quite incendiary and the players whoring for ratings and notoriety. Each chasing after their own personal "crack" if you will. It is simply pathetic what greed makes people do.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Eud, I'm sorry, but this thread is not about the "man-made" HIV "conspiracy". That is a whole issue with it's own holes and problems. We are talking about the actual, factual provable HIV which was first identified by Gallo in 1984. Please take your posts to a thread dealing with that exact conspiracy. I'm not interested in the circular logic the "whale.to" site has to offer.

MFP

Well, you asked how Bayer would have known about it if HIV wasn't even discovered until 1984. And I'm saying that's where you're wrong. I'm answering your question with timelines and the actual government program where the virus originated from. So yeah, of course Bayer knew about it because the virus was ready for distribution well before the Bayer controversy story came out. They had an agenda and waited for the progress. These are drug companies, they're in it for the business, not for the welfare of the public.

So it is indeed very relevant to this thread.

The AIDS virus has been around for several decades, if not hundreds of years

Dr. Jakob Segal, professor and former Director of the Institute of Biology at Berlin University, Germany, stated there is no evidence to support the existence of the-AIDS virus before 1979. Tests that suggest otherwise are the result of "false positives", Dr. Segal stated, alluding to another shortcoming in a blood-testing system that already imperils America's health.

In a 57-page report released in 1986 and titled, "AIDS: Its Nature and Origin," Dr. Segal mentioned a study of American blood samples conducted in 1984. One batch of samples was collected in 1954; the other batch even earlier.

Dr. Segal wrote in his report: "Ninety-four percent of the sera of 1954 displayed a positive reaction against LAV/HTLV-111, and even in the older sera the apparent prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-ill reached 53%. As we cannot suppose that 30 years ago the AIDS virus had spread to nearly the whole population of the USA only to decrease suddenly to the present prevalence of 0.25%, we must conclude that we are dealing with 'false positive' reactions due to a loss of specificity during the long storage . .

"This confirms our concept," Dr. Segal wrote, "according to which, in fresh sera, separate groups of antibodies are differentiated by the modern testing methods, whereas in partial denaturation by . . . inadequate cooling, or moderate heating. 'false-positive' values will be obtained . . ."

AIDS: Biowarfare Experiment

[edit on 26-5-2006 by eudaimonia]

Originally posted by antipigopolist

Originally posted by bsl4doc
...I said I expect that Bayer used tainted blood, but I also don't think that it's something they did knowing it was AIDS. They probably assumed there were probably non-chronic conditions that would occur that they could write off as side effects.

Question for you, bsl4doc...this is real simple...would you prescribe tainted blood products to your patients knowing full well that they were tainted by an unknown agent and not knowing for certain if any possible side-effects would cause bodily harm? Yes or no will suffice as there is no grey area here.

Are you suggesting Bayer let all the doctors of the world know the products were tainted? Where did you see this information?

Originally posted by bsl4doc
...At most, there were 400 people, of course those are the ones we know of, there may have been more. However, take into account this was out of tens of thousands of people all over the world receiving the drug.

So...in your opinion, these are acceptable losses? And of those tens of thousands who received the tainted products...how many of them do you think are truly informed and have the knowlege to see that if they are infected with the HIV virus that Bayer may have been the cause? I'm getting the impression that you chose the medical field for reasons beyond human care or you're just not getting it. While I agree that the title of this thread is just wrong, Bayer should be held accountable if evidence arises showing that they knowingly sold tainted products to cushion losses. But innocence until guilt has been proven should remain the norm.

On a side note, I found the video quite incendiary and the players whoring for ratings and notoriety. Each chasing after their own personal "crack" if you will. It is simply pathetic what greed makes people do.

I'm not saying they are acceptable losses. I'm saying put it in perspective. There are bigger problems with the American medical community that are blatantly killing more people than this issue ever did. Do you know how many people in America have little to no access to BASIC medical care in your country? I'm a European doctor, and I'm even considering doing a medical mission to an underserved area of the USA. Yes, I agree Bayer should be held responsible, and they were. They elected to pay a fine to which the parties agreed. It's not like Bayer put a gun to the people's heads and said "Take the money" a settlement is just that, a settlement. Both sides settled on X number of millions as an acceptable recompense for the damage done. If the parties involved are satisfied, who are you guys playing advocate for? This is a non-issue now. Perhaps move on to something that is ongoing and remains unsettled?

MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yes, I agree Bayer should be held responsible, and they were. They elected to pay a fine to which the parties agreed. It's not like Bayer put a gun to the people's heads and said "Take the money" a settlement is just that, a settlement. Both sides settled on X number of millions as an acceptable recompense for the damage done. If the parties involved are satisfied, who are you guys playing advocate for? This is a non-issue now. Perhaps move on to something that is ongoing and remains unsettled?

MFP

They were held responsible by paying the victims? You're joking right?

So if I kill someone or attempt to, all I have to do is pay the family/victim and go about my day as if nothing happened?

I don't think you know what being held responsible really means. Especially if one takes another life and what those consquences are.

Money solves everything in your twisted mind, I guess.

Just the fact that there's a settlement is enough to shut down Bayer. It's a disgrace to even have the thought of something like this ever happening.

They were held responsible by paying the victims? You're joking right?

So if I kill someone or attempt to, all I have to do is pay the family/victim and go about my day as if nothing happened?

I don't think you know what being held responsible really means. Especially if one takes another life and what those consquences are.

Money solves everything in your twisted mind, I guess.

Just the fact that there's a settlement is enough to shut down Bayer. It's a disgrace to even have the thought of something like this ever happening.

I don't think you understand what a settlement is. The other party, in this case, the infected victims who are suing Bayer, had to AGREE to this settlement. Their other option was to continue with the case. Everyone, corporations and invdividuals, have the opportunity to approach the suing party and offer a settlement in order to not go to court, whether for PR reasons, or whatever other reasons they want. Often, the settlement is accepted because the lawsuit doesn't really have enough evidence to swing in the prosecuter's favor. Perhaps this was true in this case. I can't think of any way you could take the 50 or so people who sued Bayer and prove they all contracted HIV from the blood products. It's just as likely that these people caught it from exposure to blood in the hospital while being treated for haemophilia, caught it during unprotected sex, etc.

Can you provide me with any evidence showing a clearcut link between the Bayer Corporation and HIV? The settlement, to me, is just Bayer's way of avoiding a costly and nightmarish PR storm, and is not an admission of guilt. I have yet to see any research, medical studies, documents, ANYTHING that proves a link between s single HIV case and the factor viii supplements.

MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Are you suggesting Bayer let all the doctors of the world know the products were tainted? Where did you see this information?

No...what I am suggesting is this:

If a company, whose primary objective is to provide quality medical products to caregivers, knows a product is tainted, then it should not be offered, no matter the cost.

You seem to have missed some info from links provided on the very first page so I will quote the relevent here for you:

On May 22, 2003, The New York Times reported that Cutter Biological sold millions of dollars of blood-clotting medicine for people with hemophilia -- medicine that carried a high risk of transmitting AIDS -- to Asia and Latin America in the mid-1980's while selling a new, safer product in the United States and Europe. Cutter introduced its safer medicine in late February 1984 as evidence mounted that its prior product was infecting victims of hemophilia with HIV. Yet for over a year, The New York Times reported that the company continued to sell the old product overseas.

So, now with that in mind, please answer my question. Would you knowingly give tainted blood products to your patients? It's a simple question...or so I thought...for medical student.

So, now with that in mind, please answer my question. Would you knowingly give tainted blood products to your patients? It's a simple question...or so I thought...for medical student.

If I were a Bayer employee with that knowledge quoted in the text you presented, no, I wouldn't give the blood product. At the same time, if I were a doctor in 1978 getting this product from Bayer and I had no way of knowing the blood was tainted, I would have used it.

There are recalls on medical products, tools, drugs, all the time. Do you think these corporations are doing it all on purpose? Sometimes, sure their cutting costs. Sometimes it truly is an accident. I don't think the Bayer case was an accident, but I also know they had no way of testing for HIV and could not have anticipated this. The "high risk groups" for AIDS back then were not based on medical and virological studies, it was based on the bigoted notion that only those engaging in homosexual acts were "at risk" for HIV, which was quickly disproved.

If a company, whose primary objective is to provide quality medical products to caregivers, knows a product is tainted, then it should not be offered, no matter the cost.

Apparently you don't realise that America is a capitalist nation...since when did "ethics" and "well-being" enter into the capitalist agenda? I don't recall ever hearing about that? It would be nice, but then again, so would giving everyone on earth a nice house and enough food for their family.

MFP

[edit on 5/27/2006 by bsl4doc]

You are completely missing my point as it relates to the real issue. And try to keep the sidestepping to a minimum, please. It's blatanly obvious to anyone that a doctor would prescribe the drug if it was held out to be "clean". That's not at issue here. What is is that it is alleged that Cutter (a division of Bayer) knew for over a year that this drug was linked to the HIV virus. It may be a legal dead issue because they were $talked$ into settling but it certainly is not a dead ethical discussion point. What I'm talking about is accountability for those who made the decision to continue sales abroad if it is proven. It seems what you are advocating is a company's self-interest. Sorry...but that's the impression you are giving. Money over ethical practice.

We here in the US are getting very tired of all the corruption and many are taking a stand, in their own way, and calling for accountability and through pressure from constituents change is taking place, however subtle. So please don't preach to me about capitalism and the like. I live smack in the middle of corporate america and deal with greed on a daily basis. You believe change is not possible it would seem. I like to walk on the "other side of the street" and will do what little I can to stop this acceptance of madness.

Enjoy your weekend.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by antipigopolist]

What is is that it is alleged that Cutter (a division of Bayer) knew for over a year that this drug was linked to the HIV virus.

Have any proof? I would truly be amazed if there was proof, as there was no test for HIV, nor was HIV discovered, until 1985 and 1984, respectively.

I'm sure they knew some blood was taken from "risk" groups, but they had no idea HIV could be transmitted via plasma, they had no idea what caused HIV, and thus could not screen the samples for it, and they were actually wrong about the prisoner's being a risk group, as we see in modern society. I don't recall prison's being hotbeds of HIV activity?

MFP

[edit on 5/27/2006 by bsl4doc]

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Have any proof? I would truly be amazed if there was proof, as there was no test for HIV, nor was HIV discovered, until 1985 and 1984, respectively.

I really cant believe we are still here. Reality check ok. Lets forget HIV and its dicovery date. Lets remember AIDS.

For instance

Although doctors first became aware of a possible link between Aids and blood transfusions in December 1982, it took another four years before safer, heat-treated products reached Britain.

And

It happened in the early 80s, after the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, reported in July 1982 that haemophiliacs were becoming ill from blood products.

I'm sure they knew some blood was taken from "risk" groups, but they had no idea HIV could be transmitted via plasma, they had no idea what caused HIV, and thus could not screen the samples for it, and they were actually wrong about the prisoner's being a risk group, as we see in modern society.

That whole paragraph is wrong. They had no idea about HIV, correct, but cause of HIV? Dont you mean cause of AIDS? Now thats different no? They knew about AIDS and they knew people where getting sick from the blood products.

I don't recall prison's being hotbeds of HIV activity?

You recall high risk groups right?

US Prisons Should Make Condoms Available To Prevent Spread of HIV, Hepatitis C

about one-third of US residents who have hepatitis C and 15% of individuals with AIDS are incarcerated in any given year,

U.S. prisoners, inmates estimated that about 44% of prisoners probably participate in "sex acts" while imprisoned, the Times reports. In addition, researchers estimate that about 70% of people who have sex while in prison had their first same-sex partner while incarcerated

Oh, and lets not forget tattooing and IDU.

So im gonna repeat myself.

Factor VIII / Antihemophilic Factor (AHF) Overview

In May 2003, The New York Times reported that several major drugmakers, including Bayer and Baxter, knowingly supplied hemophilia patients with Factor VIII, which is made from donated blood, even though many units were tainted with the HIV or hepatitis C virus. It is believed that thousands of patients from dozens of countries were exposed to the diseases from 1978 to 1990. In August 2003, seven Taiwanese patients who allege they developed HIV from tainted Factor VIII during the mid-1980s sued Bayer and Aventis. Bayer has been accused of selling a safer version of Factor VIII in the United States during this period while continuing to sell the high-risk version outside of the country.

Bayer division 'knowingly sold' HIV-infected protein

A division of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer knowingly sold blood-clotting agents infected with HIV to Asia and Latin America months after withdrawing them from Europe and the US, an American newspaper claimed yesterday.

Cutter Biological continued to dump stocks of the factor VIII blood-clotting agent for haemophiliacs on poor countries for nearly a year after introducing a safer alternative, the report in the New York Times said.

However, it was in fact, loaded with hepatitis and HIV."

Alrighty?