Talk:Obama calls food safety system a 'hazard to public health'

Review

Revision 784556 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could be a bit longer but I'm good with it, Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 784556 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could be a bit longer but I'm good with it, Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Omits this https://www.scribd.com/doc/309957583/Amended-Levaquin-complaint in which Mrs. Hamburg's accused of concealing deaths and other adverse side effects from Levaquin, a drug manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.

The complaint, interestingly, includes this allegation:

"Specifically, on or about May of 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg as a political appointee to become Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). On information and belief, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg was nominated as a result of huge political and other gratuities to Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation, and at Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation. During the confirmation process before Congress, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, acting in concert with her husband, Peter F. Brown and the other Defendants named in this Amended Complaint, at all material times the Co-CEO of a hedge fund named Renaissance Technologies, L.L.C., failed to disclose to Congress and other relevant authorities, her and her husband’s clear-cut conflict of interest –specifically, that Renaissance Technologies, L.L.C. held hundreds of millions of dollars of Johnson & Johnson stock, the manufacturer of the deadly drug, Levaquin.

Once confirmed as FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg acted as the instrumentality that all Defendants used to perpetrate their conspiracy and racketeering enterprise by having her act illegally and outside the scope of her authority as FDA Commissioner to suppress material information to Plaintiffs and the public that Levaquin was inherently dangerous and in fact, deadly. Had this information been disclosed to Plaintiffs and the public at large, her and her husband’s financial gain and net worth would have plummeted, since Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg’s husband, Peter F. Brown, reaped and continues to reap huge financial gain as a result of Renaissance Technologies, L.L.C.’s holdings of Johnson & Johnson stock. To further this conspiracy, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, acting in concert with each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, appointed officials of Johnson & Johnson to key FDA Advisory Committees and colluded with Johnson & Johnson and its officials and subsidiaries to suppress information about the dangerous and deadly effects of Levaquin.

As a result, during Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg’s tenure as FDA Commissioner from 2009 to 2015, over 5,000 people died as a result of consuming Levaquin and other dangerous drugs promoted, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold by Johnson & Johnson, suffered debilitating, life-threatening, and deadly illnesses and effects.

This deadly harm is continuing as Plaintiffs and thousands of other people are suffering and dying from the highly dangerous effects of Levaquin."

Apparently it's fine to sell drugs with deadly side effects over the pharmacy counter, if you pay Hillary her cut, first. Vfrickey (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The effect vs. the system itself

This article doesn't appear to me to interpret Obama's statement correctly. I don't think he called the FDA's inspection system itself a hazard to public health (and if the article is not claiming this, it certainly appeared to me that it did on my first read). I don't think that noting the hazard of 95% of food processing sites being uninspected is the same as calling the entire food inspection system itself a hazard. Abbenm (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's from today, so still subject to change - if you want to draw more from the sources, or add another source of additional information - go ahead. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the sources, it doesn't appear that this interpretation is unique to the wikinews article after all. But, I think a source like the IHT describes it better than the BBC or the AP. This is my first day as a registered member of wikinews which is part of the reason why I've held off from changing things myself, I feel more comfortable of criticizing than contributing, at least until I've read the guidelines a little more. But I think a change to the headline and the first sentence of the article that's similar to the IHT's description would be nice. Abbenm (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)