It's a very interesting place but the english Wikipedia page doesn't have much on it. Maybe I'll work on that.
When it comes to existing companies that've had intentionally tremendously horrible effects on humanity, it's hard to think of any worse than Bayer.
Whoa, what? First I've heard of this. A sort of Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment writ large in Asia?
"(Bayer's) Cutter (Laboratories) misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannego...
Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent).
Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional?
Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree.
All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear.
There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit.
For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied.
The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe."
As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad.
One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.
It wasn't just some bad batch. Factor VIII concentrate required large amounts of human blood plasma to produce, had no real substitute, and was inherently going to be infected once the HIV virus became widespread. It wasn't even certain at the time that the new sterilization procedure was effective against AIDS.
There's some serious questions about how decisions were made under crisis conditions, and particularly about the culture of hiding information from patients in the medical community (even in the west) in order to "prevent panic", "for their own good", etc. but it's hard to fight a culture of lying with more lies.
They continued to sell it for a full year after that point. Accidents happen, but intentionally taking your product out of one market that declares it dangerous and dumping it on another--for a period extending one year--isn't an accident. It's a very intentional, shortsighted move to minimize losses.
Was it, though? I can't find any reference of consequences from these territories.
The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.
I'm surprised they have a good reputation with anyone at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer...
I'm a bit older, and maybe things have changed, since. But the Bayer public image in the U.S. used to be pretty benign.
I'm not sure they can fool anyone, though, trying to "hide" Monsanto under it.
To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just think there's a joke in there
You think that is what Monsanto is known for? Not for being the spearhead of Kissinger's depopulation program?
Whether those perceptions have merit is a matter for another discussion...
I watched many ag companies introduce products with large marketing pushes that provided too little benefit to farmers and they all failed. Farmers tried these products on a small scale, saw there was too little benefit to them and stopped purchasing.
I followed the legal case of Percy Schmeiser and others. They all lost in a battle that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. There is no way that seed blowing over a fence line would lead to a crop that was 95-98% pure Roundup resistant seed, it's physically impossible. The farmers in question were simply cheating and got caught.
This never happened. Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...
Source http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/four-companies-announ...
Zyklon B + Agent orange + Chlorine gas = what can go wrong?
Or as Shakespeare put it in Romeo and Juliet:
"’Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague, What’s Montague? It is not hand nor foot, Nor arm nor face. O be some other name, belonging to a man! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet."