Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[netcurtains] 21/2/2023 09:50

Is this late buying for the dividend?
Does it go ex-dividend tomorrow?
And court case on Thursday?

[netcurtains] 20/2/2023 09:47

prices ok on LSE site. It appears that ADVFN has a problem.
Perhaps they have not fed the meter?

[tradermichael] 20/2/2023 09:43

FTSE peaking at all-time high - what's up with that?

[abdullla] 20/2/2023 09:41

What's up with the London stock exchange ?

[pierre oreilly] 20/2/2023 09:18

Quite a lot of societal memes there Gecko, but zero science Imv.As DrB said, these things are very highly complex and definitive statements are difficult to make. Everyone seems to have extremely strong beliefs about food, but a strong belief based on the repitition of memes doesn't make them facts. In such a complex area, I'd say it's best to keep an open mind.

[alibizzle] 20/2/2023 07:33

With ex divi date Feb 23 and state court case Feb 27 the share price could be changeable over next 2 weeks or so

[pierre oreilly] 19/2/2023 16:31

Yeah, I think all contributing know the extra risks of eating such untreated, or little treated, foods. While I agree with the factual stuff you've written, I'm not sure I agree with 'consumption certainly not recommended'. I'd say, for those who get a benefit (like extra flavour) higher than the extra risk, then go for it.

But risk assessment is all askew in so many ways. For example, I'd assess the risk of eating smoked salmon less than the extra risk of driving a couple of miles rather than walking. Or put another way, I'd say the risk is lower than many risks we take without thinking in our daily lives. (especially if you have a daughter who likes horse riding).

Having said that, as I said before, my wife stopped drinking raw milk when she was pregnant, assessing the tiny risk as higher than we'd like to take in those circumstances.

[tradermichael] 19/2/2023 11:05

Untreated milk is milk that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry harmful germs, such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella. Consumption certainly not recommended!

Consuming shellfish risks poisoning from heavy metals (like mercury). Eating undercooked or raw shellfish, especially raw oysters, is the main risk factor for acquiring a bacterial infection with Vibrio parahaemolyticus.

Listeria is a bacterium that causes an illness called listeriosis. It is widespread in the environment and once a food product has been contaminated it can grow on food at standard refrigeration temperatures. It can be destroyed by thorough cooking. It is of most concern in chilled, ready to eat foods that are not normally cooked before being eaten, such as smoked fish.

[pierre oreilly] 18/2/2023 13:12

I was brought up with really horrible milk from the milkman, pasteurised and homogenised in long bottles. Made tea horrible too. I was about 16 before I had a cup of tea with decentish milk (just pasteurised I expect) - what a difference. Another step up when we found Lait Cru (untreated) in French supermarkets ..... chalk and cheese compared to Uk milk offerings. Wife decided to give up lait cru when pregnant, just ultra cautious. There were (reputable) theories of very small amounts of listeria (which most kill off during digestion) in raw milk causing miscarriages.

I eat a lot of food with minimum processing when confident - steak tartar, any smoked fish, any fish ceviche, steaks rare (and often completely raw in the middle), oysters, mussels. The only problems were very occasional upset from oysters, and always (twice recently) green lipped mussels, so don't eat those raw anymore.

[alphorn] 18/2/2023 12:27

The bottles of milk at school often had plenty of cream at the top.

[dr biotech] 18/2/2023 12:27

Many more people get cancer now as the biggest risk factor for cancers is age (smoking obvs a big factor). You have to compare age groups to see what effect diet has and the whole thing is horribly complicated as there are so many variables.

If you want to live a long life you need to restrict your diet to something like 80% of the recommended calories. Their have been experiments with monkeys that have shown that. Downside is permanent tiredness low libido etc. Caloric restrictive I think is the term.

[lippy4] 18/2/2023 12:24

used to work on farms as a teenager and we would just get a drink from the milk cooler after milking before being picked up by the tanker,its taste was lovely,so creamy..


todays milk after pasuration and taking all the goodness out of it seems so lacking as so little cream left in..

[pierre oreilly] 18/2/2023 11:44

I think there'd be far more problems, like starvation, if meat weren't processed in some way. You'd have probably 24h to eat your turkey after wringing its neck before flies/bacteria processed it to make it unpalatable/dangerous for humans. So there's a balance to be had. Freeze it, smoke it, cool it, dunk it in salt, wrap it in plastic, you have to do something. Smoking meat is interesting, gives fantastic flavours but unfortunately believed to be carcinogenic ( much like eating tar by cigarette smoking). Without chemically treating raw meat to be eaten later afaiui, there's quite a high risk of botulism, which would kill you quicker than the potassium nitrite would. In reality, unless you grow your own meat, unprocessed meat isn't available. (Or milk in fact. After years of drinking raw milk abroad, the good old UK tells us it's too dangerous and has to be treated, ruining much of the flavour)

[lippy4] 18/2/2023 10:49

po

today there is so much preventative medicine than the was before with obesity drugs costing more than treating smoking,heart attacks now are well controlled,if they removed all these drugs the people would be dropping like flies..

[netcurtains] 18/2/2023 09:45

PO:
My main points were - inner city pollution (related to motor vehicles) is behind much of the high cancer rates as the stats highlight that urban areas have higher cancer rates than countryside areas.

Then the rise of junk food causes all sorts of issues with pollution, landfill and overeating. Processed meat is not good.



Zantac is probably not linked to any of it. I cant see how the claimants can win... But anything can happen. Not counting my chickens.

[pierre oreilly] 18/2/2023 09:32

If you accept that the age of death is related to how healthy the diet, then it looks like the data doesn't back up your view lippy.

Iirc, the projected longest living British humans are the current 20 year olds, who I expect have more 'junk' food than those at say 70. (willing to be corrected by those with better info).

Of course there are other factors, like the health service, exercise and billions of other factors.

I'm not sure 'fast' food is the problem - surely it's the actual food itself rather than the speed of getting it ready to eat. I think McD burgers are quite healthy - little fat, a bit of salad, a well balanced light meal. Unlike for example, a slow cooked King Charles' cornish pasty, which is full of fat (if you accept fat is bad, that is). My view it's excess calories over what people need which is the problem, not really the food itself. (I.E. if you have a 2000 kC milk shake with a burger, that's probably too many calories unless you run it all off later).

[lippy4] 17/2/2023 20:02

netcurtains


the diet of the post war generation was the best for years,i suggest you look at the diet of the younger people of the seventies when fast food became the killer with obesity being the main problem and its many problems it has caused and getting even worse today as i see all these waddles as i call them going down the street..


get rid of fast food the modern killer of people...

[rikky72] 17/2/2023 14:39

I think it's incredibly hard to prove that Zantac caused these cancers and imho it didn't.. there is 40 years of safety data and it is unlikely that a correlation wasn't picked up. But the press love a conspiracy story and so any hint of GSK 'hiding' data is manna from heaven for them although I don't believe they actually did.Although.. I always remember a story about a US court case Amstrad brought in the 80s: they were knowingly sold a ton of faulty hard drives by western digital but, because it was a good ol' US of A company the judge ruled in favour of WD. Bonkers.

[mj19] 17/2/2023 13:30

The company has put aside some money for the worst case and share price reflects this also right?Institutions hold this stock in large amounts

[alibizzle] 17/2/2023 13:07

Seems like the Feb 27 court case will be litmus test , not now

[netcurtains] 17/2/2023 12:45

Not a great deal

[mj19] 17/2/2023 12:42

So what do you think is going toHappen?

[geckotheglorious] 17/2/2023 11:50

Hidden data
The heartburn tablet Zantac was on the market for almost 40 years. As drugs go, it was a raging success. It raked in billions in sales for its creator, a company that now goes by GSK.

All the while GSK, just Glaxo back then, had a 10-page report from 1982 somewhere in its files outlining an experiment that found Zantac’s active ingredient, ranitidine, under certain conditions could form a probable carcinogen called NDMA. Glaxo executives in the UK didn’t share this with their American counterparts in the US as they gunned for Food and Drug Administration approval in the early 1980s. They also didn’t share it with the FDA.

So, how do I know about it, you ask? My colleagues Susan Berfield, Jef Feeley and I got access to thousands of pages of court documents, including depositions and studies that have never been made public before, as well as drug applications and meeting transcripts at the FDA to trace Zantac’s hidden history.

Read our story here.


The 10-page report, now known as the Tanner study, wasn’t the only sign something might be wrong with the pills. Throughout the years, GSK downplayed signs Zantac could degrade before its expiration date was up — which was a recipe for impurities, potentially harmful ones, to form. But it wasn’t GSK, or even the FDA, that initially revealed the problems with Zantac, and a number of generic competitors. It was an independent lab called Valisure that does drug testing. It found the NDMA in 2019 and alerted the FDA that scientists at the lab believed the problem was the ranitidine itself. It was degrading to create NDMA. Only then did the recalls start.

The FDA conducted its own research and eventually forced Zantac off the market in 2020. But that isn’t the end.

More than 70,000 lawsuits have been filed in state courts against the company by people who took Zantac and generic versions of it. The first one to go to trial, set in the California Superior Court in Alameda County, may start as early as this month.

The real kicker for me is that the pharmaceutical company Sanofi, which now owns the rights to sell Zantac in the US, has found an odd way to bring the pills back to drugstore shelves. The drugmaker first attempted to see if it could somehow safely continue to use ranitidine in Zantac, but that didn’t work.

So instead, Sanofi began selling non-prescription Zantac in 2021 that doesn’t contain any of the key ingredient that defined the drug. It’s instead now made with famotidine, the active ingredient in competitor Pepcid. So if your local Walgreens happens to run out of Pepcid, now you know where to find a secret stash, just grab a box of Zantac. — Anna Edney