Nigeria: Pfizer, we are NOT lab rats

In favour of redress

Recently, a higher court in the United States of America ruled in favour of Nigerians [1] having their case tried in the States rather than in Nigeria where an alleged offence had been committed.

This case has been to the courts so many times and yet for all the legal wrangling, justice is nowhere in sight.

The background to the story is already well known – in 1996, there was an outbreak [2] of measles, cholera and meningitis in Northern Nigeria; Pfizer the pharmaceutical conglomerate magnanimously offered to help the government by providing drugs to deal with the problem.

Somewhere along the line, it appears, as they say, they came to some agreement with the government to conduct a drug trial [3] with an experimental treatment which had not been allowed elsewhere and this apparently lead to blindness, deaths, deformities and other kinds of problems for the children who might have been administered the drugs.

Maybe so, for Pfizer

Pfizer contends that its drugs had nothing to do with the problems and that it was a case of an inadvertent coincidence that their drugs were administered just when the disease had already taken its toll – that is plausible, but it is subject to debate, sub judice and somehow this case still has merit for the plaintiffs and before the judges which is why it is still in the courts.

I would not enter into the legal arguments that surround this case but there is much to be said for the situation as it stood then.

Without moral rectitude

First of all, Pfizer erred in their moral obligations by taking advantage of a critical health situation to promote an untested drug with the hope that it would produce results that would have gone on to earn the company clout, competitive advantage, kudos and untold profits but also could have been quietly shut down since it was in an African backwater.

Even though Pfizer contends that the government was informed of the drug trial and they might have assumed the people were well intimated of the trial and the consequences, they failed in their ethical responsibility to engage the parents to the extent that they would have understood if it were better to take well known treatments for meningitis rather than give up their children for experimental license.

In a country where the health situation is dire, it goes without saying that most parents would not have the objectivity to assess the circumstances of a drug trial apart from being given the assurance that the treatment their child would receive would cure the child.

Exploitative predators

Whilst it should have been incumbent on the government to duly inform the people, Pfizer should not have taken the opportunity to exploit the vulnerability of concerned, troubled and vulnerable parents, no matter what hopeful benefit might have accrued from testing the drug.

If indeed their drug could not have caused the deaths and deformities there was no study to prove or that allowed for them to conclusively arrive at that conclusion since the United States had already banned the use of that drug in any studies back at the home country.

Shopping for workshops for evil

It would appear Pfizer was shopping around for a place where they could conduct their deadly experiment and extricate themselves from culpability if it went wrong – which it did.

That the Nigerian government could have complicit in this malevolence is unconscionable but the further consequence of this atrocious exercise was that when polio [4] broke out in Northern Nigeria the parents refused to allow legitimate polio drugs to be administered to their children for the fear of being involved in new experiments offering false cures.

It meant for a while, polio which should have been wiped out of Sub-Saharan Africa began to spread bringing opprobrium on concerned helpless people who had lost confidence in both their government and seemingly helpful agencies of goodwill that could have helped them.

The West poured scorn on the Muslim Nigerians in the North for their stance when in fact it was in reaction to a despicably conducted exercise masterminded by a supposedly responsible global drug company, a few years before – they were once bitten and now twice shy.

Between arguments and responsibility

Pfizer might well have good solid and unassailable legal arguments but those are beside the point, they failed in their moral, ethical and corporate social responsibility to use their better position and expertise to help people who really thought they had salvation for their dire situation.

In the end, the little man in Nigeria might not have voice, means or angels in Nigeria to fight for their rights, fairness and justice, but by God they do have rights in this world to sue for justice where Big Pharma might just think they can rove the world with impunity

This time Lady Justice would again listen to their sorry case in the United States of America and I can only hope the moral, ethical and social consequences of Pfizer’s actions in Africa would exact high compensatory redress and punitive damages for their excursion to Africa regardless of the legal genius of their high powered attorneys.

The perseverance of the attorneys for the plaintiffs can only be commended and long suffering of the victims after all these years and trials leaves one quite touched and also apoplectic in righteous indignation at the inhumane and uncompassionate legalistic view Pfizer have portrayed.

Nonetheless, it must be heard loud and clear all around the world that Africans, the Third World and people in developing countries – for the want of more politically correct demographic appellations – are NOT guinea pigs or lab mice to be abused and discarded at the whim of some mad Mengele-esce [5] scientist or global corporation.

Sources

[1] BBC NEWS | Americas | Nigerians can sue US drugs firm

[2] Pfizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[3] Trovafloxacin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[4] BBC NEWS | Africa | Q&A: Nigerian fears threaten polio drive

[5] Josef Mengele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier blogs on this issue

The Pfizer Drug Trial [Originally on akin.blog-city.com] – May 2007

Humantarian Pfizer fed Nigerian kids poison drug - allegedly [Originally on akin.blog-city.com] – May 2007

Your mum inadvertently uses your computer

A text for help

It was an SMS which was a half-panic text about his computer being infected by a virus and inquiring about what he had to do. Please can you advice? It ended, indicating a sense of calmness in the midst of the turmoil that could lose you your data in an instant.

Well, I hope my magnanimity in sharing this event is shared by my friend because it might well be my first real computer-usage related blog.

In fact, I really should have written much in this area since I wrote so much along these lines in my Masters programme and I do have 21 years of experience behind me.

However, stemming from a series of conversations with my friend about his computer and protecting himself from embarrassing situations, I have knocked up this little piece and it pertains mainly to Microsoft Windows systems.

If anything, it makes it safe for your mum to use your computer when you happen not to be around to prevent her seeing things she should not and you trying to explain yourself out of the impossible.

Updating an antiviral dosage

In times past you needed to protect your computer from viruses [PCHelpForum] [Wikipedia] [DirectoryM] that could destroy or mangle your data – you cannot scrimp on this – you MUST install an antivirus utility and always keep it up to date.

There are free offerings like AVG [AVG (Download)] or subscription offers from Symantec, McAfee or some other outfit, it is your first line of defence.

It is generally inexcusable to have an unlicensed operating system especially if you use the ubiquitous Microsoft Windows because its popularity lends to people finding ways to exploit its vulnerabilities – software is NOT perfect workmanship, it is generally a work in progress.

There are critical and security updates as well as service packs, you must always ensure your system is fully patched. Enable the reminders in your installed applications so you get informed when something needs to be updated – this also goes for drivers of devices installed in your system.

Pull up the drawbridge

People would always want to attack your system which is most probably always connected to the Internet, preventing that from happening requires that you enable your firewall [Wikipedia]. Your firewall is like a drawbridge with a sentry that check who goes there before allowing access.

You can make it more restrictive ask it to prompt for programmes trying to access the Internet which are not the usual email to Internet browser applications.

Your firewall must always be ON.

Gifts of suspect providence

So, they cannot get on your computer through the means of viruses or by your firewall and they try a Trojan horse [Wikipedia]. You visit a suspect site and inadvertently download some software or you receive a silly email that promises you a winning for a competition you did not enter – you double-click on some file and your computer grinds to a halt.

Meanwhile, the inadvertently installed programme is harvesting your usernames, passwords and even keystrokes then sending that information out to a computer where the malevolent can attempt to access your emails, bank accounts and do something so despicably evil with your personal details.

This is called malware [Wikipedia] and neither your antivirus application nor your firewall can handle this – you need a spyware [Wikipedia] remover and this is where Spybot – Search & Destroy [Safer Networking – (Download)] [AOL Video – (Tutorial)] is going to be your best friend.

What had happened was that a spyware programme masquerading as an antivirus toolkit needed an update had installed on his system and hijacked the Microsoft Security Centre giving the impression his antivirus was out of date.

Deceptive Antivirus

One look at the malware called Antivirus 2009 [SpyWare.com] [Wikipedia] leaves me both disgusted at the malevolent intend and impressed with the social engineering qualities the programme contains that the unsuspecting would have handed over all their information without knowing what had happened.

Through going to his Control Panel he was able to see that the Microsoft Security Centre was fine but being cloned and interfering with the normal operation of his system.

He downloaded Spybot – Search & Destroy which thoroughly searched through his system and completely removed every trace of the malware and any other suspect material.

Things you cannot share with mum

Finally, if you have been visiting places you cannot tell your mum about the built-in ability of Internet browsers to remove cached data would not suffice, it still leaves copious amounts of data that any smart guy can check to see where you have been as your face goes redder than beetroot.

To save your blushes you should get CCleaner [FileHippo (Download)] [YouTube – (Tutorial)] and run it regularly on your system – it rids your computer of any traces of where you have been, cleans your computer registry of obsolete or invalid data and offers a clean interface for removing applications.

These are not necessarily endorsements of the products mentioned but they are tools I have used for years to keep both myself and my computers out of trouble.

Maybe I should stick to writing my regular kind of blogs.

Just another miserable old man

Miserably calling to order

It was not a discussion or conversation; it was an outburst of a concerned citizen.

Man: Can you take control of the child?

Woman: Take it easy, she is just a child.

Man: But this is a public place.

Woman: She is just having fun, what is your problem?

Man: You cannot just have a child running in and out of people’s legs, it is a public place.

Woman: Oh! Get away you miserable old man.

Man: You are completely irresponsible parent.

She walks away mouth out and mimicking the man – It is a public place.

Put a leash on the girl

Very much an incident as one walked the long concourse of the new St Pancras International Railway terminal.

This little girl hardly five had been running away recklessly weaving through the crowd without any sense of being under any control.

In an instant, she ran between the legs of a commuter tripping the person that she had a great fall and I did quite feel the pain of the fall whilst I thought to myself, I cannot afford to fall like that even if I was falling onto a bedded floor.

Her mother apologised profusely saying it was not the intention of her daughter to cause the fall just as the lady dusted off herself and tried to reclaim her dignity.

Nary a second after the incident, the girl off running again doing the same thing and as she ran round me that I had to stop, and therein was the outburst you read earlier.

Between expression and restraint

What I intended was achieved, she was kept close immediately after that exchange with her mother but there is a problem that gives great cause for concern that needs to be addressed on the matter of parenthood.

There is this unhealthy concept that children must be allowed to run free, express themselves and do whatever they can imagine or get up to without restraint.

A child would normally have boundless energy and some believe that there should be no boundaries to that self-expression as if the lack of restraint exposes the creative genius of the child which offers them the great opportunity to become a success.

There might be some truth in that, but releasing the boundless energy of an individual without providing parameters of operation within a community is the recipe for chaos and anarchy.

The need for some sense of control

It was all well and good for the girl to be able to run around, but if she cause the fall of others, who then is responsible for that accident and if it becomes a serious legal issue who should be held responsible?

Many might say, but it is a child which is true – but the child is the ward of some supposedly responsible adult who should for all reasons of safety and consideration ensure that the child comes to no harm just as much as it does not cause harm to others.

More so, having a kid run around in a vast station area like that could lead to more serious issues like kidnapping and really I am already inured to any sob story about a lost child.

If I had my way, any parent that inadvertently loses a child should be water-boarded till they confess to exactly what they have done to the child – after the case of Shannon Matthews [Wikipedia], it is unthinkable what these rotten animals that end up with perfectly adorable human offspring get up to.

Self-discovery without barriers

The matter of self-discovery is myriad from the positive parts of development that definitely needs good parenting, role models and positive reinforcement and encouragement to the more worrisome societal ills of juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse, gang membership to teenage pregnancy.

This is all in the name of the child being given the freedom to discover itself and by doing so hopefully becoming successful without necessarily becoming responsible members of society.

Many of us who frown on such bad manners and uncouth behaviour would get a mouthful of abuse and be called miserable old men or gits for standing up for what is right and in some ways expressing concern for the safety of the child and parent – this is a little price to pay before I see another parent sobbing on television for all sorts of reasons related to the child they failed to manage responsibly with a sense of parental responsibility.

Milking udder nonsense from cows with names

Roaming free with eggs

There isn’t a moment of indecision when one walks down the supermarket aisle looking for eggs and taking the free range variety.

Obviously, free range could be taken to mean the eggs would not sit in the egg-box when opened, but presumably we have been cajoled into thinking the eggs were laid by hens that roam free rather than those in battery cages.

Giving a cow a name

What would surprise me after recent studies is to find that my choices of milk have moved from the basic whole, semi-skimmed or skimmed to some more bizarre description like this was milked from cows with names [1].

Apparently, beyond the context of the holy cow, sme dairy cows have developed a personal relationship with their owners that they have been given names allowing them to produce more milk than would nameless bastard cows.

Cowed by silly names

Typically, the cow is given a name like Daisy in the UK, or Clara with a number in the Netherlands,they might even get names Milka, Crema or Skima to play on the context of names. But then, just imagine people who share their names with cows being called cow for the sake of being unfunny.

However, if a dairy farm has to name its cows, would the cows than have to take on surnames and would surnames denote ownership as was the case with human slaves rather than kinship depicting the brood of the bovine matriarch or the farm bull?

Stressing out on a name

And just as double-barrelled names depict illegitimate liaisons long forgotten what additional stress can be placed on a cow that realises that its name is borne of bad provenance rather than the consummate love of its owner and its healthy progeny?

Would it then be a stretch that named bulls would produce better beef or would the realisation that name-calling is healthy preparation for the abattoir be a weight loss regime on the part of the bull?

For instance, the sheep called Woollies might produce more wool and the crocodile called Snappy might produce more skin – Errr!

Udder nonsense

It goes without saying that there is a lot of useless science expended in stupid discoveries because I would not be surprised if commercial diary farms implement sound systems that whisper sweet nothings to the cows just for the sake of the milk.

At least, one can hope that those in China would call the cow Chin-Milk and completely kill that despicable act of adding melamine to milk to boost its protein content.

I could just hear someone say this is udder nonsense when in fact it is udderly true.

Source

[1] Cows with names produce more milk, scientists say - Telegraph