Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Roseanne

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
Posted

Good points, Brisket, and the ability of the far right to suddenly swing far left might help explain why the Republicans are scared of losing Trump's base. The threat of them dislodging themselves from the (R) ticket is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 552
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

for the record, this is the kind of code-speaking i referenced above. trying to tie these two incidents together as though they are remotely at all similar says a lot more about how people think

Degenerate Gardner
Degenerate Gardner

The right is starting to get better at comedy and it’s making lefties nervous.

SydneyCarton
SydneyCarton

Pretty sure he could sue her for that shit. 

Posted Images

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

extremist "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and the most extremist "MAGA" crowd 

Those two have a lot more in common than you might think.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/activist-russia-protest-occupy-black-lives-matter

The ideological spectrum is more of a horseshoe or circle than a flat plane.

I’ve posted this before but I feel it’s especially topical here.

 

CBCB32D5-3CBD-4FF9-B4AA-168341DA36E0_zps

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8284

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

If I was working in their pharmacovigilance department I would be cringing at the thought of their twatter feed making reference and drawing further attention to a national media dialogue involving erratic behavior after taking ambien, but what do I know.

This is hilarious on several levels.

And you know absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23471

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

This is hilarious on several levels.

And you know absolutely nothing.

Ha. OK.  I guess its just modern marketing savvy to inject your corporate brand into twitter controversies involving racism and drug use, where the twitter gives people plenty of opportunity to interject about all the side effects of your drug in between the pats on the back for laying down a sick burn. As far as the PV angle, I believe that some of the responses to the Sanofi tweet where people are talking about their prior experiences with Ambien  and adverse drug events may be interpreted as creating reporting obligations for Sanofi.

I am not intimately familiar with the FDA social media guidance, but they've probably opened themselves up to potential scrutiny against those guidelines as well. I am sure they ran the tweet by their lawyers, and my thoughts may be totally without merit.  Maybe you are familiar with these requirements and guidances and can fill in where my gaps in understanding are. Either way, I wouldn't have tweet waded into this.

shit.http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2017/08/WC500232767.pdf

Quote

VI.C.2.2.1. Spontaneous reports The marketing authorisation holder shall record all reports of suspected adverse reactions originating from within or outside the EU, which are brought to its attention spontaneously by healthcare professionals or consumers. This includes reports of suspected adverse reactions received electronically or by any other appropriate means [DIR Art 107(1), Art 107(2)]. In this context, the marketing authorisation holder may consider utilising its websites to facilitate the collection of reports of suspected adverse reactions by providing adverse reactions forms for reporting, or appropriate contact details for direct communication (see VI.B.1.1.4. for guidance on ICSRs management from the internet or digital media).

Quote

  

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21021

Posted
Posted

I haven’t listened to the Richards thing since when it happened, but I remember thinking that it seemed fairly likely that he wasn’t actually trying to be racist. Just missing the mark by a mile trying to mix loud and edgy with some social commentary and coming up with horrible rather than funny, quick, and insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I haven’t listened to the Richards thing since when it happened, but I remember thinking that it seemed fairly likely that he wasn’t actually trying to be racist. Just missing the mark by a mile trying to mix loud and edgy with some social commentary and coming up with horrible rather than funny, quick, and insightful.

He was bombing, very badly in fact, and somebody in the audience let him know about it. I’m fairly certain his rant was fueled by embarrassment because he knew the heckler was right. There’s a fine line between being funny and being offensive, and he jumped over it by a wide margin. It’s actually pretty sad to watch him talk about it, as it appears to have broken him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8284

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Ha. OK.  I guess its just modern marketing savvy to inject your corporate brand into twitter controversies involving racism and drug use, where the twitter gives people plenty of opportunity to interject about all the side effects of your drug in between the pats on the back for laying down a sick burn. As far as the PV angle, I believe that some of the responses to the Sanofi tweet where people are talking about their prior experiences with Ambien  and adverse drug events may be interpreted as creating reporting obligations for Sanofi.

I am not intimately familiar with the FDA social media guidance, but they've probably opened themselves up to potential scrutiny against those guidelines as well. I am sure they ran the tweet by their lawyers, and my thoughts may be totally without merit.  Maybe you are familiar with these requirements and guidances and can fill in where my gaps in understanding are. Either way, I wouldn't have tweet waded into this.

shit.http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2017/08/WC500232767.pdf

Yes, I'm virtually positive the company does not make public statements about their drugs without understanding the ramifications.  I'm also quite familiar with spontaneous reporting requirements and how companies interpret regulations. 

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You do know what ambien’s mechanism of action is and what it has been associated with, right?

Absolutely.  Was Gilbert Gottfried on Ambien when he tweeted this and got dropped in the grease?  Like Roseanne, he claimed it was just a joke.

GOTTFRIEDTWITTER.jpg

Edited by SizzleChest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23471

Posted
Posted
Just now, SizzleChest said:

Yes, I'm virtually positive the company does not make public statements about their drugs without understanding the ramifications.  I'm also quite familiar with spontaneous reporting requirements and how companies interpret regulations. 

Right.  Cause companies never fuck up when evolving social media intersects with the traditional aspects of their business communications.  I mean, there are like zero examples of anything bad coming from all that.

Tell you what.  When you get back in the office in the AM, go ahead and IM some folks in your PV function, assuming of course that you don't outsource that functionality, and ask them whether they think that ADEs reported directly in response to your social media account are potentially reportable events under GVP VI. After they answer that, ask them if they think it is a good idea for the company social media account to initiate a discussion focused on adverse events associated with one of your assets, opening a potentially bottomless well of reportable events.  Then come back and remind me that i know absolutely nothing.

The use of and regulatory requirements related to social media and Pharma more generally, but PV in particular, is a rapidly evolving area. It's silly to brush off the risks of wading into a social media "controversy" where an ADE, and especially one where there is a plausible connection via dysinhibition, is involved. But clearly, I know nothing. The lawyers got this. LOL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8284

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Right.  Cause companies never fuck up when evolving social media intersects with the traditional aspects of their business communications.  I mean, there are like zero examples of anything bad coming from all that.

Tell you what.  When you get back in the office in the AM, go ahead and IM some folks in your PV function, assuming of course that you don't outsource that functionality, and ask them whether they think that ADEs reported directly in response to your social media account are potentially reportable events under GVP VI. After they answer that, ask them if they think it is a good idea for the company social media account to initiate a discussion focused on adverse events associated with one of your assets, opening a potentially bottomless well of reportable events.  Then come back and remind me that i know absolutely nothing.

The use of and regulatory requirements related to social media and Pharma more generally, but PV in particular, is a rapidly evolving area. It's silly to brush off the risks of wading into a social media "controversy" where an ADE, and especially one where there is a plausible connection via dysinhibition, is involved. But clearly, I know nothing. The lawyers got this. LOL.

 

Fuck dude, Ambien went generic over 10 years ago.  It's percentage of Sanofi's total net sales in Q1 2018 was less than 1 percent.  It's a fucking ~100B company and you think they're worried about safety complaints for a product that represents less than 1 percent of net sales?  I think they fucking did the math and felt the positive PR for the tweet outweighed the risks.

But I'll go ahead and "IM" some PV colleagues in the morning about it if that makes you feel better.  They're supposed to freak out about every little thing - by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23471

Posted
Posted
Just now, SizzleChest said:

Fuck dude, Ambien went generic over 10 years ago.  It's percentage of Sanofi's total net sales in Q1 2018 was less than 1 percent.  It's a fucking ~100B company and you think they're worried about safety complaints for a product that represents less than 1 percent of net sales?  

Exactly another reason to step away from the whole event. They give not two shits about Ambien's market perception, it's not even in their book of business. All they did was generate risk exposure for social media reps. OK. I mean, great. I am sure that their oncology and rare disease portfolio really benefit from a social media thread where the whistle blower allegations regarding their drug pricing schemes are highlighted, and you got people lining up to relay their adverse events with Sanofi products. There is zero real world upside, and lots of downside. But man they threw some twitter shade. Hope that converts to EPS. Fuck man. You really whiffed on this one.  

 

13 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

But I'll go ahead and "IM" some PV colleagues in the morning about it if that makes you feel better.  They're supposed to freak out about every little thing - by design.

Oh no shit? Maybe that's why I said in my post "If I was working in their pharmacovigilance department I would be cringing at the thought of their twatter feed making reference and drawing further attention to a national media dialogue involving erratic behavior after taking ambien, but what do I know." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8284

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Exactly another reason to step away from the whole event. They give not two shits about Ambien's market perception, it's not even in their book of business. All they did was generate risk exposure for social media reps. OK. I mean, great. I am sure that their oncology and rare disease portfolio really benefit from a social media thread where the whistle blower allegations regarding their drug pricing schemes are highlighted, and you got people lining up to relay their adverse events with Sanofi products. There is zero real world upside, and lots of downside. But man they threw some twitter shade. Hope that converts to EPS. Fuck man. You really whiffed on this one.  

 

Oh no shit? Maybe that's why I said in my post "If I was working in their pharmacovigilance department I would be cringing at the thought of their twatter feed making reference and drawing further attention to a national media dialogue involving erratic behavior after taking ambien, but what do I know." 

OMG, Sanofi's going down from one tweet!!!111!!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

So Roseanne, ABC show runners, and many Trump supporters are now out of the picture?  How is this not a good thing?  I'll go back to watching Handmaid's Tale and reading National Review.  It's a good thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6949

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Your contention that, at any point in her fatuous apology tour, Reid took responsibility for her beliefs is bizarre. Her claim is that she didn’t write them, so this feigned evolution of her beliefs on homosexuality is a silly notion. She should have lost her job, but now she’s currently hosting her own show and excoriating Roseanne in town halls. I’m sorry, but I find this particularly irony distasteful and a testament to the importance of where you are located on the political spectrum.

Why should she have lost her job? Her two hour mea culpa with throngs of supportive gay people indicates she handled the situation well. What else would you have her do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Why should she have lost her job? Her two hour mea culpa with throngs of supportive gay people indicates she handled the situation well. What else would you have her do?

Every question that you asked was answered in my post that you quoted. Also, I’m not entirely sure you understand what Mea Culpa means, as it requires one to acknowledge one’s own wrongdoing. She remains adamant that she wasn’t responsible for the homophobic posts, so spare me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12495

Posted
Posted

John Goodman weighs in:


 

Quote

John Goodman is opening up about the cancellation of Roseanne, but the celebrated actor is being cautious about his comments regarding the controversy.

In recent footage obtained by ET, Goodman was at an auto repair shop in New Orleans where he was collecting his car after repairs. The actor was reluctant to address the drama, explaining that he would "rather say nothing than to cause more trouble."

However, the 65-year-old actor -- who played Roseanne Barr's on-screen husband, Dan Conner, on the ABC sitcom -- assured fans that he's doing OK amid the controversy, sharing, "Everything's fine. Nothing's fucked here, dude."




https://www.etonline.com/john-goodman-breaks-silence-after-roseanne-barr-controversy-exclusive-103260

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R2D2

R2D2 91

Posted
Posted

Look at all these burned Trump supporters going to any length to defend the indefensible. Par for the course as a Trump supporter.

You're all very obviously racists. Own it. And have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4068

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's hard to label these days because the lines are all jumbled up.  IMO Trumpism is a new distillation of various threads in the right, and it's pulled in some people who wouldn't have been Republicans before.   I admittedly don't know too much about Roseanne's political history, but her Twitter before this event is filled with screeds about liberals and nutty shit from Breitbart.   I think she was an early supporter of Trump, before the show reboot. 

Well again, that means she’s either dabbling in apostasy or idiocy, neither of which merits a microsecond of my attention to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

John Goodman weighs in:

https://www.etonline.com/john-goodman-breaks-silence-after-roseanne-barr-controversy-exclusive-103260

Translation:

"On one hand, what she said was awful and no one can support it.  On the other hand, she is a big fish in TV Hollywood and can command a lot of things, including a hefty paycheck for me, so I'm not gonna completely leave that boat, what, am I fucking crazy?"

Smart guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13530

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, phdhorn said:

Translation:

"On one hand, what she said was awful and no one can support it.  On the other hand, she is a big fish in TV Hollywood and can command a lot of things, including a hefty paycheck for me, so I'm not gonna completely leave that boat, what, am I fucking crazy?"

Smart guy.

It will cost Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Gilbert a fair amount of money but the other actors probably had next to nothing going on so it may mean a 100% drop in income for them.  

It's very possible that Ambien, alcohol, or some other drug definitely helped push Roseanne over the edge to do this.  But that is just an explanation and not an excuse.  "Boss man, sorry that I called you at 3am to cuss you out.  I was just drunk so we're all good, right?"    

One sad element for Roseanne is that she does appear to have some form of mental illness or substance addiction.  If not both.   I recall her days married to Tom Arnold that she came across as bi-polar:  manic one second, depressed the next.    I hope anyone like that gets the help they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It will cost Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Gilbert a fair amount of money but the other actors probably had next to nothing going on so it may mean a 100% drop in income for them.  

It's very possible that Ambien, alcohol, or some other drug definitely helped push Roseanne over the edge to do this.  But that is just an explanation and not an excuse.  "Boss man, sorry that I called you at 3am to cuss you out.  I was just drunk so we're all good, right?"    

One sad element for Roseanne is that she does appear to have some form of mental illness or substance addiction.  If not both.   I recall her days married to Tom Arnold that she came across as bi-polar:  manic one second, depressed the next.    I hope anyone like that gets the help they need.

Username checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...