851. Monkey, Business

Comment #106690 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:58 am

I was making comments about the actual article/Shermer's book at one point...don't know how that ended...

852. Monkey, Business

Comment #106689 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

j/k, btw, also, please see:

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/03/funny-pictures-mam-i-r-the-suprvizer/#comments

853. Monkey, Business

Comment #106687 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:55 am

Michael Shermer, who is that?

854. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106684 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:53 am

I have to agree with Steve Zara, that this is utterly offensive.

Not only is it utterly offensive, it's rather ironic considering the original scarlet letter, which I think has already been mentioned.

I don't suppose we can expect much more from people who make an lifetime's work out of repressing complex thought.

855. Monkey, Business

Comment #106678 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:47 am

I have a sneaking suspicion that Diacanu might be enjoying answering you in this manner, al-rawandi, because it irritates you so. I will have to say though, that I think his meanings and positions are cleverly integrated into the succinct (sometimes offensive) posts he makes. However, as a disclaimer, interpret at your own risk!

;-)

856. Monkey, Business

Comment #106676 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:41 am

al-rawandi, it's fine. I have no problem defending myself (and sometimes even a good time). I think it's good that we debate these ideas as they are very important societal issues.

Steve Zara, well young at heart at least!

857. Monkey, Business

Comment #106667 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Hungarianelephant,

I never said that I had all of the solutions. I offered up the suggestion of shortening the patents as a possible solution. I don't know if it will work, but on the face of it, it seems that it would. Also, you said that prices are set based on what the market can bear, so if this is true then why and how would shortening the patents cause prices to be driven up if they are controlled by the market anyway? And even if prices are driven up by a shorter patent time, why would that create more profit for the industry especially if they are limited to set prices by what the market can bear?

And seeing as how I have thought about and researched this issue a good bit, I don't think it's fair to say that I have simply placed a label on it without critical thought.

So the proper description of the business you're in depends on the level of profitability? What?

No, you asked why we attacked the pharmaceutical industry and not the farming industry. PART of my reasoning was because the farming industry isn't generally known for exploiting its customers and making huge profits as a result of the exploitation, but you don't agree with me about that, I'm sure.

As far as the regulatory framework goes, yes of course we instituted the regulations to begin with, but once the lobbyists get a hold of them, they are barely recognizable, which was my point. It doesn't matter where they've started because of where they've ended up.

As far as the pharmaceutical industry contributing to pain in suffering, they do so in several ways. One is by promoting the pill popping answer to everything. "If you've got such and such, take this pill, it'll fix it!" People need to learn that many of the "ailments" they suffer will indeed be vastly improved with exercise and good diet. I am living proof of that as well as many other people. SO MANY of the things that there are pills for are significantly improved or even go away. Diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, even erectile dysfunction improves with weight loss and exercise. They are contributing to these problems by offering "simple solutions". They also contribute to the pain and suffering by withholding a portion of the wealth and making drugs unaffordable for those who really DO need them.

What else? Please, I can continue all day.

858. Monkey, Business

Comment #106645 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:13 am

Thanks, Steve! I'll try to remain young and idealistic!

859. Monkey, Business

Comment #106631 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:04 am

I'll go ahead and respond, just in case.

Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. At this point in my studies of economics, I don't know enough to offer up a viable alternative. However, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to recognize the faults of the current system. I will attempt to study some more and maybe in the coming weeks I can formulate some sort of solution.

860. Monkey, Business

Comment #106629 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 8:01 am

Thanks, Diacanu!

Who was al-rawandi talking to? Am I supposed to respond?

861. Monkey, Business

Comment #106626 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 7:58 am

To some extent, I do find all of Western Capitalism abhorrent. I don't expect industries not to make a profit, but when they are raking in the dough and there is plenty of pain and suffering around the world, why wouldn't I find that abhorrent? Especially when they are part of and an advocate of the pill popping culture that we live in. Like I said, maybe I'm just young and idealistic, but if I were ever to invent anything, my main goal would to be to improve someone's life and that would be the profit for me.

862. Monkey, Business

Comment #106619 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

Doubtless you will also describe the business of farmers as "maximising profits" rather than "growing food". Right?

I've never known of the farming industry to be nearly as profitable as the pharmaceutical industry. Please provide examples.

Secondly, we are attacking the pharmaceutical industry partially because that is what has been brought up and also partially because I imagine Rtambree and I both have a heart and are somewhat disturbed by the pain and suffering we see around the world. Some of which can be ascribed to the pharmaceutical industries ideals. Also, you asserted that the the industry has become what it is due to regulatory framework, which is laughable. Did you forget about lobbying???!!!! WTF, they are one of the biggest contributors to lobbying. What's the point of lobbying if you aren't influencing the regulatory framework. I'm sorry to be insulting, but please come back when you have a better argument.

863. Monkey, Business

Comment #106597 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 7:34 am

I am no fan of most pharma CEOs, but they are not billionaires.

Wrong. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/21/7

Also, in regards to the patent business, please see:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=655&type=0&sequence=1

And this with regards to what Rtambree has already said:
http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?page=LIST&ProdID=429&qid=&zTYPE=2


Anyway, maybe I'm just young and idealistic, but when an industry like the pharmaceutical industry makes as much money as it does and has the bottom line as it's main goal, I find it abhorrent. Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you like, but it's an exploitation of the people. Doctors become doctors because usually they want to better the lives of individuals. I seriously doubt that's why Pharmaceutical giant CEO's become CEO's.

864. Monkey, Business

Comment #106561 by annabanana on January 3, 2008 at 6:30 am

hungarianelephant,

I am aware about the rules of the patent, as I looked them up yesterday to make sure my assumptions were correct. I am aware that they include R&D in that as well as FDA approval, but they can still ask for an extension of that 20 years to cover the time that was spent not on the market and they can apparently re-patent the same drug for different uses, as well. To give an example, Singulair, which is an asthma drug I take, has been around since 1998, but because of extensions and being indicated for allergic rhinitis at a later date, it's expiration is now 2012 and they are also planning to make a combination pill with the makers of claritin so that they may get 50% of the profits from that, as well.

I'm not saying that the pharmaceutical companies don't invest time and money into making their products, but they still make huge profits and their CEO's are billionaires. The pharmaceutical sales reps make more than twice what I make with opportunities for bonuses depending on how much they sell. They used to hire people with science degrees, but they discovered that sales increased if they hired marketing majors who have little background for selling the products. I recently heard some doctors saying that they can tell that the reps really don't know what they're talking about anymore. The business/economical part of the industry has overtaken the original purpose which was to help better the lives of people. I'm not saying that the scientist and doctors involved in the R&D process have no desire to help patients, because I'm sure they do, but they're being paid hefty sums as well. The bottom line is what matters to the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not saying they're the devil, but well...they kind of are.

865. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106229 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Ooooh! Come back to the Bible Belt as well! PLEEEEAAASE! :) South Carolina needs you!

866. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106227 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Well, good luck with that. I'm guessing as long as you don't taunt them and then run to the nearest cafe screaming like a madman and making them think that you ARE a madman, you'll be ok. I'm on the East Coast which means that it's 5 and I'm going to the gym to outrun the fat that's chasing me. See you all tomorrow!

867. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106219 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

San Francisco, eh? Watch out for those tigers.

868. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106214 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm

You are right, al-rawandi, but it's still obnoxious. I don't know how RD, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. can stand to do interviews and debates anymore when they are constantly bombarded by the same atrocious misconceptions over and over again. It didn't take me that long to train my dog to "shake" hands, how long does it take to train these people?

869. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106206 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty.

This statement insinuates that RD et al are all CERTAIN there is no god. Apparently she missed the part in TGD where RD says he cannot be certain that no god exists. How obnoxious.

870. Monkey, Business

Comment #106189 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I must correct my earlier assumption that the patent length is 7 years. It can be up to 20 years, which is even worse.

871. Monkey, Business

Comment #106173 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm

al-rawandi,

Yes, they are similar in the way they are released, but Wellbutrin is not in the same "schedule" as adderall or vyvanse because you can't get "high" from it really. Adderall is essentially methamphetamine so it is more scrupulously dispensed than wellbutrin. There are more regulations about who can handle it and how it has to be kept (under lock and key).

872. Monkey, Business

Comment #106160 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Found this, it disturbs me:

http://blog.cuttingedgeinfo.com/archives/2007/08/index.html

al-rawandi, Vyvanse is something of an adderall that has to metabolize in the body before taking effect. The appeal is supposed to be that it is less addictive than adderall and harder to get "high" off of.

873. Monkey, Business

Comment #106150 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Also, many of the allergy medications on the market perform similarly to one another and none are any better than the others. It may vary from person to person, but across the board their effectiveness is essentially the same. There are plenty of "families" of chemicals that are frequently marketed by the pharmaceutical companies as new amazing drugs that really are no different than the next in efficacy. One that I can think of that there isn't any competition for is singulair. It's an asthma/allergy medication and as far as I know, the only one like it on the market.

874. Monkey, Business

Comment #106149 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I know that I offered up doing away with the patent, but your assertions in the earlier posts made it seem as if that was the only option I offered. I also offered shortening the patent, which would make sense so that credit is given where credit is due. I fully understand the amount of time and money that goes into R&D, but I also understand that (with the patents as they are now) the incentives to formulate a patentable drug sometimes result in redundant therapies and abusing the purpose of the patent.

Also, the ADHD drug I was speaking of was Vyvanse.

875. Monkey, Business

Comment #106136 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 12:06 pm

al-rawandi,

I was not intending to treat you like a child or speak to you condescendingly. I just think that your knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry is more limited than you would like to admit as well as insufficient to prove the points you are trying to make. I will freely admit that I don't have a huge basis of knowledge about economics, but I don't think that I'm making hyperbolic statements with regards to the economics of the pharmaceutical industry.

You have also incorrectly summarized my positions on the patents. I never said that the only option was to eliminate the patents. I also offered up limiting the patents as well as denying patents for "reformulation" when the only difference is the mechanism of delivery.

I have also never said that capitalism is completely evil. If you go back to some of my other posts, I have defended capitalism and am an advocate of a mix of capitalism and socialism.

876. Monkey, Business

Comment #106109 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 11:23 am

Rtambree, Thank you.

877. Monkey, Business

Comment #106102 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 11:03 am

hungarianelephant,

While you seem to be much more informed on pharmaceuticals than al-rawandi, you are still missing some very important points. The seven year patent on new drugs allows for no competition in the market. The pharmaceutical company has a monopoly over the drug from 7 to 10 years (depending on how long the lawyers can hold it off in appeals) which allows them to set whatever cost they like. This is why when the patent expires, generic versions come out and the cost is radically lower. We need to either completely do away with the patent or shorten it so that while the company is rewarded for the R&D it has done, competition allows for lower drug costs.

Or alternatively, you could loosen the criteria for approval, which will result in more, but not necessarily better, drugs.

This is already the case. Specifically, a new ADHD medication came out recently which turned out to be no better than any already on the market.

Also, everyone keeps ignoring what I am saying about getting patents on extended release drugs. This is ridiculous. IT IS THE SAME MEDICATION. The only difference is its mechanism of delivery. This is a big ploy to boost profits and essentially extend the patent of their top selling products. Most of the pharmaceutical companies wait until the patent is about to expire on the original drug before releasing the extended release form. It's highway robbery. Those of you who think it's not are deluded!

878. Monkey, Business

Comment #105987 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 8:52 am

I don't know that they are raping us. Can you provide some financial data to back your wild (and perhaps hyperbolic) claim of rape? I am not being sarcastic, I would like to see the evidence. I don't hold opinions I feel are contradicted by the evidence.

Please see comment #114.

For an example, my insurance co pay for PREFERRED brand name products is $25 which is 2.5 times greater than the copay for generics which is $10. Non-preferred brand names are $40 or 4 times that amount. Not to mention, if they weren't making astronomical profits, they wouldn't bother spending an inordinate amount on lawyers to prolong the expiration of drug patents and on patenting delayed release drugs which are the same chemical as the original drug, but are simply put in pills that dissolve at a slower rate. Also, I have asthma and I use an albuterol inhaler. Because of ozone damage caused by the propellant in the inhalers, it is being "reformulated" in a new inhaler that uses a different propellant but still contains the same drug, albuterol. This is receiving a new patent from the good old U.S. patents office so that I can now start paying $25 an inhaler every two weeks rather than $10.

Is that enough, or do you need more?

879. Monkey, Business

Comment #105979 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 8:38 am

I will also add that if the pharmaceutical companies weren't raping us, then generic drugs wouldn't be any cheaper than their COMPLETELY CHEMICALLY EQUAL counterparts.

880. Monkey, Business

Comment #105974 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 8:32 am

But at the risk of being rude I must ask what you are doing personally to reduce suffering in the world or is it simply the responsibility of successful businessmen?

I'm working for the state I live in in the Bureau of Air Quality to ensure that the air we breathe is safe for breathing and doesn't cause excessive health problems for the citizens. I also am environmentally responsible (recycling, conserving, etc) and I donate to charity. How bout you?

These all provide a service. If it weren't for the wealthy pharma companies we would not have made as many strides in medical research.

No one is suggesting that we don't need the pharmaceutical industry or even that they should provide their services to us without making a profit. I am merely suggesting that they don't have to rape us in the process of trying to better the lives of people.

881. Monkey, Business

Comment #105966 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 8:21 am

al-rawandi, the pharmaceutical industry is not a jewel. They continually price gouge and have astronomical profits. They also encourage the whole just "pop a pill" and it will be better instead of being a part of some sort of movement towards preventive health care. Many health care issues like blood pressure, for example, could be solved with diet and exercise instead of just popping a Vytorin. I know that not all problems can be solved by diet and exercise and that we are very much in need of pharmaceuticals, but their goals have become more about profit than improving the quality of lives of people. If they weren't, you wouldn't hear a peep from them when their 7 year patent expired, but instead of letting it expire and generics being sold, they spend a buttload of money on lawyers to go to court and appeal and give themselves about 3 more years of profits. Then to top it off, they come out with the extended release form of the drug which is not chemically different from the original, but still qualifies to have a new 7 year patent just because the mechanism of delivery is different. So yes, the pharmaceutical companies sexually violate society en masse, as you put it.

882. Monkey, Business

Comment #105951 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 7:56 am

Again, pharma is a capitalist jewel.

I hope that wasn't a compliment. The pharmaceutical industry deserves none, unless you consider rape as worthy of a compliment.

883. Monkey, Business

Comment #105935 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 7:21 am

First of all, if we're going to start the discussion about socialized medicine (in the U.S. particularly, since that's where I am) here goes. I'm glad that you had a good experience with the Dr., al-rawandi, but the privatized medicine of today needs to be severely altered. If we're giving anecdotes, I'll give mine. I went to the doctor on Monday for my yearly exam by my ob/gyn and I have "good" insurance which covered none of my visit. It was $145 above my $350 deductible that I have already met. This is difficult for me on my measly government salary. Why wasn't it covered? Because visits not for illness or injury aren't covered. No preventative medicine in other words. I am allowed one pap smear per year, but since my doctor uses one of the newer ones (that detects problems better/faster), my insurance didn't cover it. They want her to use the old one that doesn't detect things as well. Why is medicine so expensive? Because mal-practice insurance is so expensive. Why is mal-practice insurance so expensive? Because we are a nation that has the urge to sue the $h!t out of a doctor (or anyone else we can think of) if everything doesn't go exactly as planned. As for insurance, well they're in the business to make money and nothing else. Not to help anyone stay healthy, I guarantee you that. I think socialized medicine would have a much better shot (either that, or the insurance and pharmaceutical industry need stricter regulations against price gouging). Being that I actually work for the government, I know that everything is not bureaucratic and that not all decisions come from the top down. The people who work for the government are not all evil and actually usually work there because we CARE. Imagine the healthcare you would recieve if suddenly the people administering it and paying for it cared? Red tape is not as all over the place as you apparently believe. This misconception is a product of our ridiculous media (I won't start ranting about them). And as for pharmaceuticals, well, they're just raping us.

I do think that a good balance of capitalism and socialism is necessary and that NEITHER model alone is sufficient. There's my two cents.

884. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105654 by annabanana on January 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm

roach, don't be so sure. If your mind was changed for you simply upon new evidence, then everyone would *know* that evolution is a valid theory and their minds would have been changed long ago with regards to creationism.

885. Monkey, Business

Comment #105640 by annabanana on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

Thanks, Diacanu, that was good...

Happy New Year or arbitrary time change as Steve says!

886. Monkey, Business

Comment #105409 by annabanana on December 31, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Thanks so much Rtambree! I am a biology nerd by degree and work for the state's bureau of air quality so I've taken on a good bit of the climatology, so I can't wait to watch them. It will be something interesting to watch tonight before the new year! Happy New Year to everyone from me, as well!

Where is Diacanu, btw? I think we're in need of one of his quips.

887. Monkey, Business

Comment #105404 by annabanana on December 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

If every human is dead, I am unconcerned with the survival of cockroaches, bacteria, and most likely Keith Richards.

al-rawandi, thanks for that, I almost fell out of my chair about the Keith Richards part.

Steve Zara and Rtambree, Your conversation is most fascinating. Please do tell where you have learned of these theories as I am very eager to read about such!

As for the book, I think it sounds quite interesting despite what people have been ranting about it. That could be because of my TOTAL lack of knowledge of the field of economics. This subject for me = deer in headlights. But it seems necessary that all fields of study will have to cross paths at some point, so I don't understand all of the objection to this.

888. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #104449 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Oh, I see...maybe you could use an ellipsis next time? ;)

889. Man and God

Comment #104446 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:50 pm

There are a lot of Lutheran churches around where I grew up...most of the people in those churches are very flexible with their Biblical beliefs and go to church just to go. They don't really talk about God that much. All the sermons are about doing good and the pastor will occasionally tie in an obscure Biblical story to go along with why you should do something good.

890. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104418 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Ah, well if it differs, then it might be one of the add-on channels...if so, then not many people will see it...boo :(

891. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #104415 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I hope you're being sarcastic

892. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104408 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm

liddlefeesh, not to worry. If you have basic cable, then you get the Discovery Channel. So most people have it. I know a lot of people who watch it. Then again, most of the people I associate with are nerds like me who like to watch that kind of stuff. But, I think a lot of people will still see it.

893. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104398 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Diacanu, you make me laugh. And I think you use the f-word more than I do, which is a feat. I do try to restrict my language here, though. I seem to have a hard enough time getting people to take me seriously as it is, minus the swearing...

894. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104395 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Yep, notsobad, and he also talked about how radiometric dating was inaccurate and all the usual lies that appeal to the more educated. Don't get me wrong, though, I greatly respect him and I wouldn't take my pet anywhere else. He's a great vet...just another one of those compartmentalizers.

895. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104378 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

ignored_ethos2,

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't patronize me and assume that my I am simply a naive young product of American propaganda. I didn't form my opinions of the founding fathers on the basis of my public high school teacher's opinions (although, who's to say that they aren't correct?). If I weren't capable of researching things and thinking critically, I wouldn't be here.

To call the founding fathers "opportunist capitalists" and assume it is an insults assumes that everyone holds the same certain opinions about capitalism, which they don't. Also, it is more naive than anything you have suggested of me to claim to know the motivations of the founding fathers. We have their words and wisdom which deserve praise even if the motivations weren't as good as some people would have you believe. I'm sure the only people who knew their motivations were the fathers themselves. As for Zinn, he has his own critics who assert that he gives a cut and paste version of history.

And as for the freedom index, it is silly to apply a mathematical formula to a something so subjective as freedom. Sure, there are things that are agreed upon as basic human rights, but many other things are prioritized differently depending on who you ask. So applying a formula as I jokingly suggested just doesn't really work.

896. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104350 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 11:08 am

Sorry, al-rawandi, I was busy taking offense to Roger Staynard. It was a funny comment, though, once I actually read it. Although, I will say that to my knowledge, I have never met anyone who claimed to speak in tongues or went to one of those snake churches or whatever they are.

897. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104339 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 10:49 am

Roger Staynard,

You're making an unnecessary sweeping generalization. I live in the Bible Belt and while probably some of the creationists are indeed redneck/white trash, there are many creationists who are quite educated. I work with an electrical engineer who is one of the smartest most inventive people I know, but he is a YEC and apparently has compartmentalization down to an art. I also worked for a veterinarian who was a YEC and also very smart. I know a nurse who is also a YEC and these are just the examples I'm thinking of off-hand. In the southern U.S., it's somewhat of a cultural phenomenon.

898. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #104268 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 8:47 am

I was thinking also, that a good thing to learn about that might not be too complicated that helped me to learn about evolution is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. It's about population genetics specifically, but it particularly bolsters one's understanding of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-weinberg_equilibrium

899. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104260 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 8:32 am

Diacanu,

*blushes* a little...

We can start an atheistic (mostly) nudist colony, maybe?

liddlefeesh, I was disgusted to see that my Step-Dad gave his sister one of Joyce Meyer's books for Christmas. As for her being a scamster, I think she comes across as initially like-able which helps her all the more...then she piles on the guilt-trip. Not to make broad, sweeping, sexist generalizations, but...she is a woman, you know, we do the "guilt trip" thing pretty well.

900. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104255 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 8:05 am

Diacanu,

I think I'd go nude too, well except for the underwear...I have a particular affinity for cute undies...

I've pretty much been kind of an oddball most of my life, too. I've never completely meshed with any particular group which is probably why I never got sucked into any scams...