I think we can safely say, that if a settlement has already been agreed to, that we can take a few things for granted, like the supposed "innocence" they had.

Huge companies with huge law firms, do not settle a PR nightmare like this, unless they know the cost of being proven guilty outweighs the damage already done.

They were TOLD BY THE FDA- "THIS DRUG LOT ISN'T SAFE- YOU CAN'T SELL IT".
They did, and they did with knowledge that it could hurt people...

for that alone, they show they were pursuing profit rather than public safety...
and they are damn lucky that is all that could be proven.

And the disease was hep, as well as AIDS... so should they not have tested for Hep anyway? and when it was found tainted, shouldn't they have destroyed the drug?
They didn't...
So thus bayer is found guilty of selling tainted medicine in other countries, that the FDA forbid them to sell here.

For those who isn't in the know,here's links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/22/health/main555154.shtml
http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/1997/WJ970504.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23488.php
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/25news.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9405EFDF1F39F93AA15752C0A96F958260

Here's some snippets from the links above:

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.

Inmates were considered a high-risk group because of previous intravenous drug use as well as the rapes and homosexual activity common in prisons. A 1984 information bulletin about prison plasma centers published by the American Correctional Association listed six states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Nevada and Missouri -- as running programs at that time. The Arkansas Department of Corrections continued running its plasma program for another 10 years -- until 1994.

Mr. Byus said the Arkansas plasma collection program, which continued until 1994, was a way for inmates to earn from $7 to $10 for each donation. But Food and Drug Administration inspectors regularly recorded problems with the way the program was handled. And despite controls, inmates who should have been prevented from taking part were accepted, probably because they bribed or offered favors to other inmates who administered the program, Mr. Byus said.

So from the information above... it basically started in 1972 and most possibly stopped in 1990-1994, even though the company is claiming innocence in the fact that they couldn't had known, as seeing there was no HIV/AIDS detection test created until 1985. And of course, they're also claiming that they stopped this practice in 1984.

However, records show that the people involved at the time did know that there was something wrong with the product, especially after FDA told them so. And there's also the records like that one of paying inmates to donate their plasma for the purpose of creating drugs for hemophiliacs, which shows that they certainly didn't stop in 1984 like they claimed.

Alas, with that whole thing paid off and settled by Bayer, we can't exactly dig up any more records off them to prove or disprove their "innocence".

So tell me, boys and girls, what do you think about this whole thing?

OK, read all the links... :)

1. The U.S. FDA isn't that much of an authority on what's good and what's bad. They're an American bureaucratic, rather political body, open to lobbying and pressure from all sorts of groups; businesses, and special interests. The rulings they make aren't strictly scientific or all for your health.

The cases seem to centre around knowledge of whether the product could transfer the virus. Knowledge WAS pretty limited at the time... I didn't see anything that proved Bayer really knew infection was possible. Like I said, the FDA isn't that much of an authority, they mainly regulate whether something can be sold widely in the U.S. or not.
That centre for disease control is a lot better, but it's still a fact that knowledge of the virus was in its infancy. We really didn't know much about it in the early 80's.

2. Companies like Bayer who have a MASSIVE stake in consumer confidence WILL settle out of court rather than risk the damage a big public case would bring; whether they're found at fault or not, public perception will be harmed just simply because they see a lot about a trial in the media.

So it's hard to make a logical leap to a conclusion of guilt based on those factors. ;)

We all know the sorts of reasons why people will push for lawsuits in the U.S.: People feel aggrieved and want someone to pay big for it, it doesn't matter who. Or you have gold digging lawyers out to make a killing (and that is who always does best from big suits, at least from the cases I've heard about). Which means it's also possible that Bayer are just a victim of the U.S legal process...
--------------------------------------

In the end though, people WOULD seem to have fallen ill and died because of their actions, and Bayer made money out of that. Whether they knew or not, it's GOOD that money has been paid out.

In a free market and a free society (slipping on my libertarian Constitutional law hat here) you have the right to sell whatever you want, but you don't have the natural right to sell people bad things wihtout telling them that it's bad. You do not have the right to defraud people. It's like the lady back home that was selling frog meat as 'chicken salad', the people buying her stuff had the right to not be defreauded about what they were buying, even though it wasn't harmful per se.
You would have to prove that they did it knowingly and maliciously. I know the tendency today is to assume that corporations just sit around in smoke-filled rooms trying to figure out ways to poison their customers, but that is rarely the case.
I remember when the big Tylenol scare happened in the '80's (slipping on my old fogey hat now). Tylenol suffered a huge consumer confidence hit, but they got out in front of the problem, ferreted it out and bascially invented a lot of the medical safeguards we have now as a response to the issue. The consumers flooded back. Bayer will either come out of this a better company or will royally screw this up.
My point is all this is that a company like Bayer is a lot more scared of losing consumer confidence than they are of any lawsuit or anything the FDA could do to them. Unless you can prove it was done on purpose with malice, let them take their hits from their customers. As an aside, sometimes it is good PR to pay for something that isn't necessarily your fault.

You would have to prove that they did it knowingly and maliciously.

Bayer is a NAZI company. Did you know that? They're formerly IG Farben.

IG Farben was a company that supplied the chemicals to the Nazis to KILL MILLIONS OF JEWS AND OTHER PRISONERS!!!

Bayer =

It is true that Bayer was a company operating in Germany when the Nazi party nationalized all business interests. It is also true that some company assets were probably diverted for nefarious means since nefarious means were kind of the state industry for a while there. But is it your opinion that Bayer , a publicly traded company, is being run by some sort of secret cabal of aging Nazis or Nazi sympathizers without any of the stockholders knowing about it? And that these sinister shadowy Nazi board members somehow plotted and planned to spread a virus whose method of transmission was still pretty unclear at the time?

See it just sounds silly when you say it that way.

RabbitMaster
It is true that Bayer was a company operating in Germany when the Nazi party nationalized all business interests. It is also true that some company assets were probably diverted for nefarious means since nefarious means were kind of the state industry for a while there. But is it your opinion that Bayer , a publicly traded company, is being run by some sort of secret cabal of aging Nazis or Nazi sympathizers without any of the stockholders knowing about it? And that these sinister shadowy Nazi board members somehow plotted and planned to spread a virus whose method of transmission was still pretty unclear at the time?

See it just sounds silly when you say it that way.

Hi, looks like you just encountered a Kyupol!

A kyupol is a strange and frightening beast that bases most of its attacks on fear-mongering and conspiracy theories! When encountering a kyupol, your best bet is to either attempt to provoke it so that others are alerted to its presence, or to disregard it entirely, as his attacks can not harm those who won't listen!

RabbitMaster
It is true that Bayer was a company operating in Germany when the Nazi party nationalized all business interests. It is also true that some company assets were probably diverted for nefarious means since nefarious means were kind of the state industry for a while there. But is it your opinion that Bayer , a publicly traded company, is being run by some sort of secret cabal of aging Nazis or Nazi sympathizers without any of the stockholders knowing about it? And that these sinister shadowy Nazi board members somehow plotted and planned to spread a virus whose method of transmission was still pretty unclear at the time?

See it just sounds silly when you say it that way.

I started a long post on this, then decided to just say that its more of a demonstration of the banality of evil.

RabbitMaster
It is true that Bayer was a company operating in Germany when the Nazi party nationalized all business interests. It is also true that some company assets were probably diverted for nefarious means since nefarious means were kind of the state industry for a while there. But is it your opinion that Bayer , a publicly traded company, is being run by some sort of secret cabal of aging Nazis or Nazi sympathizers without any of the stockholders knowing about it? And that these sinister shadowy Nazi board members somehow plotted and planned to spread a virus whose method of transmission was still pretty unclear at the time?

See it just sounds silly when you say it that way.

Did you know about the Bush-Nazi connection?

Did you know that Arnold was caught wearing a Nazi beltbuckle and praising Hitler?

And what about Prince Harry wearing a Nazi costume?

The Nazis arent "aging". They are alive and well. And they plan to reduce the population and dumb you down and/or hurt and/or kill you through the fluoride, the aspartame, the mass media, and the vaccines.

Do you understand?

Hi, looks like you just encountered a Kyupol!

A kyupol is a strange and frightening beast that bases most of it's attacks on fear-mongering and conspiracy theories! When encountering a kyupol, your best bet is to either attempt to provoke it so that others are alerted to it's presence, or to disregard it entirely, as his attacks can not harm those who won't listen!

Haha very funny.

But man, I feel sad for you. I can't really go down to your level and start a stupid silly flame war with you. If you are trying to start to pick a fight on this forum, go find someone else.

Sorry, man.

kyupol
Did you know about the Bush-Nazi connection?

Did you know that Arnold was caught wearing a Nazi beltbuckle and praising Hitler?

And what about Prince Harry wearing a Nazi costume?

The Nazis arent "aging". They are alive and well. And they plan to reduce the population and dumb you down and/or hurt and/or kill you through the fluoride, the aspartame, the mass media, and the vaccines.

Hi, it looks like we've found a post full of unsubstantiated claims! Unsubstantiated claims are the primary ammunition of the Kyupol! By referencing things without providing context, the Kyupol is able to potentially drum up support for his beliefs. Don't be fooled though, the Kyupol lacks any sort of real evidence, so his claims have the same value as the average three dollar bill.

Seriously, Prince Harry wore a Nazi costume.

On Halloween.

A day you wear costumes.

Traditionally costumes that are designed to scare people.

...Unsubstantiated claims...

Bush-Nazi connection
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar [guardian.co.uk]

Arnold Nazi Beltbuckle



Hey APC, please do some research first before trying your pathetic attempts to belittle me.

kyupol

...Unsubstantiated claims...

Bush-Nazi connection
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar [guardian.co.uk]

Arnold Nazi Beltbuckle



Hey APC, please do some research first before trying your pathetic attempts to belittle me.

...

Okay, first off, this "connection" involves profiteering that went on during World War 2 by Bush's fucking GRANDFATHER. MY grandfather was a alcoholic racist, that has nothing to do with me.

Secondly, it's debated whether or not that belt buckle is, in fact, a Nazi belt buckle. In fact, I can't find any definitive proof it is. It COULD just be a belt buckle with a skull on it.

Hey kyupol, please do some research first before trying your pathetic attempts to discredit me.

Okay, first off, this "connection" involves profiteering that went on during World War 2 by Bush's fucking GRANDFATHER. MY grandfather was a alcoholic racist, that has nothing to do with me.

So you think that George Bush is different? Look at Iraq? The numbers of deaths are debatable but its still a huge number of dead HUMAN BEINGS who were killed because of greed.

Secondly, it's debated whether or not that belt buckle is, in fact, a Nazi belt buckle. In fact, I can't find any definitive proof it is. It COULD just be a belt buckle with a skull on it.

Its a symbol called the death's head:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=nazi+deaths+head&gbv=2

lets compare:

kyupol

Okay, first off, this "connection" involves profiteering that went on during World War 2 by Bush's fucking GRANDFATHER. MY grandfather was a alcoholic racist, that has nothing to do with me.

So you think that George Bush is different? Look at Iraq? The numbers of deaths are debatable but its still a huge number of dead HUMAN BEINGS who were killed because of greed.

Secondly, it's debated whether or not that belt buckle is, in fact, a Nazi belt buckle. In fact, I can't find any definitive proof it is. It COULD just be a belt buckle with a skull on it.

Its a symbol called the death's head:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=nazi+deaths+head&gbv=2

lets compare:

Uh... right. How about showing an actual Nazi link between GWB, instead of just going on your hate tirade.

And as for Death's Head, it was used by more than just Nazis. In fact...

Wikipedia
* The British Army's Queen's Royal Lancers continue to use the skull and crossbones in their emblem, inherited from its use by the 17th Light Dragoons - a unit raised in 1759 following General Wolfe's death in Quebec, with an emblem of a death's head and the words 'Or Glory' chosen in commemoration of him.

* The portuguese Military Police, the lancers, of the Regimento de Lanceiros 2 use the totenkopf in their emblem, similar to the one used by the Queen's Royal Lancers.

* The Kingdom of Sweden's Hussar Regiments wore it in the Prussian Style on the front of the Mirleton.

* The White Russian Kornilov regiment adopted it in 1917.

* The Estonian Kuperjanov's Partisan Battalion used the skull and crossbones as their insignia.

* During 1943-1945 the Italian Black Brigades and numerous other forces fighting for the Italian Social Republic, wore various versions of skulls on their uniforms, berets and caps.

* Although not exactly a Totenkopf per se, the Chilean guerrilla leader, Manuel Rodriguez used the symbol on his elite forces called "Husares de la muerte" (Hussars of death).

* Death In June, an experimental musical group, use a modified version of a totenkopf as a sort of logo, flanked by the number 6 since 1982. Although the particular version used by Death In June is a modified, faintly grinning version of the SS insignia, Pearce has stated the symbolism is clear: "The Totenkopf for Death, and the six for the sixth month - June." The totenkopf-6 appears on numerous articles of merchandise and many things relating to Death In June.

* Laibach (band) during their 2003/2004 WAT tour used the SS Totenkopf with a bullet hole in the forehead. The defaced symbol is also on the cover of the CD single Tanz Mit Laibach.

* Marilyn Manson used this symbol on clothing during the Golden Age of Grotesque era in a parodying manner.

* Dr. Totenkopf is the name of the supervillain from the science fiction film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004), and was played (posthumously) by Sir Laurence Olivier.

* Totenkopf is the name of a boss in the Skulls gang in City of Villains.

* The Totenkopf appears on the cover of Zwanzig Zwolf, the third album by the band Hanzel Und Gretyl.

My my. Emphasis mine, by the way.

Never mind that he could also be *eyes dart back and forth* A PIRATE!

So you're comfortable that the son and grandson of a man who tried to do a fascist coup in the usa became president?

BBC admits it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

And with regards to that belt buckle, lets say you're right. Its just an innocent pirate thingy.

So you think its ok when Arnold praised Hitler?

So you think its ok that Rockefeller dealt with the Nazis and he even has this big tower in NYC?

If thats the case, your opinion is respected as I believe in freedom of speech. Even if they are pro nazi.

This is going in a silly direction, but here's a pic I found a long time ago:



Yeah, the Nazis got that from elsewhere just like all the other things they're known for; from their uniforms, to the swastika, even anti-Semitism. They didn't come up with any of that stuff. All they did was adopt other people's stuff and do it better or more thoroughly...
Quite revolting in the case of the anti-Semitism.
-----

The unoriginality being the case though, Mapag's point about the banality of evil is important, the Nazis are not. Evil can be anywhere, all times. It's in actions, not in special groups of strange freaks like the Nazis (are supposed to be) who taint everyone through the most tenuous contact. To think that way is highly dangerous!

That sort of thinking leads to blindness to the real evils all around.

WW2 is a great example. We focus on the evil of the Nazis and forget about what the Japanese did all throughout Asia... But not just that: what all the Axis and even all the allies did all through the course of the was. The Germans became a cleansing scapegoat for the whole thing. Yes they were quite horrible but they weren't alone-before, during ,or since.

And regardless of scale, atrocity is still atrocity.

Wow. when I made this thread to stir up some things, I never imagined this would get so silly and off track.

Now, I'm all for bringing up theories and such when it comes to debating. but to link Bayer with Nazis is overdoing it, don't you think?

I basically only made this thread to hear people's opinions, about whenever Bayer knowingly let the spread of incurable disease go on for a long while or whenever they actually did make an honest mistake.

now it's true that it's a very good thing that they paid compensation for what happened. But I wonder, was it ethical that they let the spread of AIDS/HIV go on for so long, if some of the data was true?

Were they honestly so irresponsible back then that they didn't stop at the first sign of trouble with their products? Or am I too used to living in this "era", where strong caution is normally taken with the production of every health product... to the point that I would consider the medical production by certain companies to be too lax back then?

kyupol
So you're comfortable that the son and grandson of a man who tried to do a fascist coup in the usa became president?

BBC admits it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

And with regards to that belt buckle, lets say you're right. Its just an innocent pirate thingy.

So you think its ok when Arnold praised Hitler?

So you think its ok that Rockefeller dealt with the Nazis and he even has this big tower in NYC?

If thats the case, your opinion is respected as I believe in freedom of speech. Even if they are pro nazi.

I like how as soon as you start losing an argument you start throwing around strawmen. Let's review:

Someone
So you think its ok when Arnold praised Hitler?

You mean in a 1977 interview transcript where his comments are taken notoriously out of context? He was explaining what his idea of admiration was (any person at all being able to accomplish things) and then praised Hitler's skills as an ORATOR. He didn't say "The Nazis were amazing, fuck the Jews."

Arnie
I admire Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it.

Someone
So you think its ok that Rockefeller dealt with the Nazis and he even has this big tower in NYC?

Did I fucking say that? God, it's like you can't see past the conspiracy theory tattoo on your own nose. I don't think you realise that anti-semetism was pretty pervasive, even in America. And that means, yes, there were a lot of groups who either:
A. Just plain hated Jewish people
B. Felt that the Jews were a burden on society

Rockefeller supported eugenic ideals, and fell into category B. Of course, it doesn't matter because all you decided to read was "ROCKEFELLER" and "NAZIS". Good job there, champ.

It might be impossible to have a post with political cartoons and not have it turn into an argument over issues. It's too bad, because I like this thread and I'd like to see it stick around.

This is how I'd like it to go. If you see issues arise here that you really must talk about, create a thread for them and direct your discussion there. If this turns into another argument thread, I'll lock it, and that would be a shame. In other words, keep those political cartoons rolling.

Hawk
It might be impossible to have a post with political cartoons and not have it turn into an argument over issues. It's too bad, because I like this thread and I'd like to see it stick around.

This is how I'd like it to go. If you see issues arise here that you really must talk about, create a thread for them and direct your discussion there. If this turns into another argument thread, I'll lock it, and that would be a shame. In other words, keep those political cartoons rolling.

...

Uh... This is the Bayer/AIDS thread.

Kyupol, one of the problems with embracing the idea of conspiracies at the level you have is that it really does strip you of a lot of your personal worth as an individual. People in that rut tend to feel they are the victim of sinister unseen forces and any steps they make forward will be hamstrung by 'The Man'. They live their lives in reactionary mode and wind up looking for sinister patterns where none exist and occasionally wind up missing the sinister patterns that do exist. You seem like a pretty bright individual, so maybe drink some decaf once in a while.

Now as to the topic, I cannot imagine Bayer willingly poisoning their customers, but hen again I don't live in the Erin Brokovich alternate universe where every corporation is staffed by a bunch of white guys in suits who sit around and try to think of ways to put arsenic in the drinking water of the populace.
Should they pay out? Well, the product was made by them and did come off their shelves and was delivered by their trucks, etc, etc, so them paying out is probably the right thing to do, but I worry that some would take this as use it as a club to bash corporations in general with as well as using it to reinforce their world view that sinister WWII types are lurking in every corporate boardroom.

anonymousposterchild
Uh... This is the Bayer/AIDS thread.

Shoot, you're right.

Then I command you all to discuss Bayer and AIDS in this thread.

Hawk

anonymousposterchild
Uh... This is the Bayer/AIDS thread.

Shoot, you're right.

Then I command you all to discuss Bayer and AIDS in this thread.

We're talking about nazis now :colbert:

RabbitMaster
I worry that some would take this as use it as a club to bash corporations in general with as well as using it to reinforce their world view that sinister WWII types are lurking in every corporate boardroom.

Ah, but you DO have to punish corporate carelessness. It's very real and very damaging.
Actions corporations undertake purely for their own profit have the potential to damage lives and cost others billions as well as destroy the environment. Of course they should be held accountable when they are the source of a disaster, whatever form it takes.

The Exxon Valdez incident is a perfect example. You can say it wasn't Exxon's fault that the captain of that colossal ship was a complete and utter imbecile and what he did to cause the disaster because of it. BUT, transporting oil is a tricky task and it's all part of an industry making them billions. It's their fault they they didn't have oversight over their crew, that the idiot was allowed to do what he did in the first place. The ship was a single hulled piece of crap. It was travelling through extremely environmentally sensitive areas- ALL those are factors that are down to Exxon.

They did a bit to clean it up, but that's not enough. They themselves were compensated fr the loss of their ship and cargo through insurance, while thousands lost their jobs in various fishery industries that were devastated by the damge Exxon had done.

Of course they should pay out and pay out big.

Just because a business is a massive corporation, that doesn't mean they don't have to take responsibility for damage and costs to others caused by their negligence, carelessness, cutting corners, and short term greed.

Ozone, I find nothing in the substance of your points with which I disagree. Even as a corporation you have no right to poison your customers either on accident or on purpose, you have no right to defraud the public and you have no right to dump crude into Prince William Sound. However we do make a distinction between harm caused voluntarily and involuntarily, with different legal remedies for each.

That's true.

I guess I just find it really sad that those companies, whenever it was accidental or intentional, were careless for so long and it affected so many lives before they finally wisened up. In the lives of affected families, there was so many problems caused that not even money could solve. Their loved ones were taken away too soon, and probably suffer the same fate too if they weren't born before their parents became infected with AIDS. Having millions of dollars won't cure that fact. All it does is ensure a "rich future" for your own children if you're going to die soon...

I just hope that companies everywhere really learn from this horrible tragedy, and ensure that something like this NEVER happens again.

I dont understand why people would accept "medicine" from a company that helped carry out the holocaust. :(

kyupol
I dont understand why people would accept "medicine" from a company that helped carry out the holocaust. :(

Because they aren't run by the same people anymore, have a track record of putting into place some of the most stringint safety checks on medicine and save millions of lives every year?

And because you're an idiot?

anonymousposterchild

kyupol
I dont understand why people would accept "medicine" from a company that helped carry out the holocaust. :(

Because they aren't run by the same people anymore, have a track record of putting into place some of the most stringint safety checks on medicine and save millions of lives every year?

And because you're an idiot?

Ok they've changed. They're nice guys now. lol! What a joke.

people in that rut tend to feel they are the victim of sinister unseen forces and any steps they make forward will be hamstrung by 'The Man'. They live their lives in reactionary mode and wind up looking for sinister patterns where none exist and occasionally wind up missing the sinister patterns that do exist.

Its a temptation to fall into. You know, just blaming an external force about your hardship. But you know, since my eyes have been (partially) opened (I'm not claiming to know it all because there is so much to learn), I've learned to appreciate the beauty of life and focus on the bigger things. I've became less materialistic and shallow and developed a more spiritual outlook in life. I'm now leaning on the idea that all humans are interconnected and how we are part of the same thing.

Instead of lurking in a corner and feeling sorry for myself as if the world revolved around me.

But think about it. If conspiracies being mentioned by alternative media are supposedly fear-mongering and trying to put blame on sinister forces like the New World Order, what about the mainstream news?

Oh its the terrorists, Iran, North Korea, Al Quaeda, the guns, the global warming, the new diseases, the pedophiles lurking in the corner, the crazy kid who shoots up his school, etc. etc. etc. are the reason for the problems!!! Its good to give up freedom in the name of safety!!!


"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " - Benjamin Franklin

kyupol

anonymousposterchild

kyupol
I dont understand why people would accept "medicine" from a company that helped carry out the holocaust. :(

Because they aren't run by the same people anymore, have a track record of putting into place some of the most stringint safety checks on medicine and save millions of lives every year?

And because you're an idiot?

Ok they've changed. They're nice guys now. lol! What a joke.

The only joke here are your posts and ideas. There's EVIDENCE supporting that Bayer is a solid, reputable company. The only thing you have is some fucked up idea that they decided to go "OH HEY, LET'S ONLY HIRE/PROMOTE NAZIS." Just because you can't put any research into anything short of what the conspiracy theory newsgroups tell you doesn't mean that we don't do REAL homework.