slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (03/06/86)
One letter to the editor in a paper here had a theory which
I find compelling if a bit paranoid (the best theories always
are!)
It seems pretty difficult to contaminate capsules, then make
the packaging look untampered with. So the suspect may have
had some extra ability or resources. The suggestion was that
another drug company may have done the tampering, in order
to damage Johnson and Johnson.
I don't like that thought.
--
Sue Brezden
ihnp4!drutx!slb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nirvana? That's a place where the powers that be and
their friends hang out.
--Zonker Harris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/12/86)
-- > One letter to the editor in a paper here had a theory which > I find compelling if a bit paranoid (the best theories always > are!) > > It seems pretty difficult to contaminate capsules, then make > the packaging look untampered with. So the suspect may have > had some extra ability or resources. The suggestion was that > another drug company may have done the tampering, in order > to damage Johnson and Johnson. All the investigators, and J&J, seem to have ruled out (or are carefully not mentioning) the possibility of employee sabotage. The prevailing theory is that some person tampered with the tamper-proof packaging at or near the stores since the tainted bottles came from different lots. As I understand it, though, they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it was ruled out. Anyone know why? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Mar 86 [22 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (03/15/86)
> they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where > it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify > the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have > happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it > was ruled out. Anyone know why? Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks away from each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. --Greg
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/16/86)
>> they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where >> it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify >> the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have >> happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it >> was ruled out. Anyone know why? > > Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the >odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks away from >each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. I'm not sure I buy this reasoning. In other words they make two cartons of bottles and route one to (say) North Carolina and the next one on the line to Hawaii? It would seem to me very probable that if someone tampered with bottles from two different cartons in a row (say during a few minutes no one was watching) they would both end up in the same area (if not the same store.) Not a proof of anything, but I don't buy the opposite judgement on the probabilities as proving anything either here. (of course you probably need some facts to break this argument, but for now it seems to me one guess is as good as the other, and I doubt anyone is about to hand us any facts.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/17/86)
-- [I wrote] > > they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where > > it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify > > the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have > > happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it > > was ruled out. Anyone know why? > Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the > odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks > away from each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. > > --Greg But is that really true? Let's say the culprit tampers with five bottles at the factory. They're on the line, one right after the other. Odds are, those 5 will stay together for a while, through a lot of packing and distribution (assuming that the stuff is shipped in fairly large lots). If the tainted bunch is ever broken up, I'd expect that to happen very late in the distribution. And so finding 2 tainted bottles within a 1/2 mile of each other would not be so improbable. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Mar 86 [26 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) (03/17/86)
In article <270@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > It would seem to me very probable that if someone tampered with > bottles from two different cartons in a row (say during a few minutes > no one was watching) they would both end up in the same area... If I remember correctly, the two bottles were produced at different times, and passed through completely different distribution chains, yet they ended up at stores within a few blocks of one another. This is what makes tampering at the factory seem unlikely. -- Jim Olsen ARPA:olsen@ll-xn UUCP:{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen
adp@hp-sdd.UUCP (Tony Parkhurst) (03/17/86)
In article <270@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: > >>> they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where >>> it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify >>> the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have >>> happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it >>> was ruled out. Anyone know why? >> >> Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the >>odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks away from >>each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. > >I'm not sure I buy this reasoning. In other words they make two cartons of >bottles and route one to (say) North Carolina and the next one on the line >to Hawaii? > >It would seem to me very probable that if someone tampered with >bottles from two different cartons in a row (say during a few minutes >no one was watching) they would both end up in the same area (if not >the same store.) Not a proof of anything, but I don't buy the opposite >judgement on the probabilities as proving anything either here. (of >course you probably need some facts to break this argument, but for >now it seems to me one guess is as good as the other, and I doubt >anyone is about to hand us any facts.) The impression I have is that the two different stores in question are supplied by two *DIFFERENT* warehouses. This would give credence to the probabilities argument. Sparky
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/18/86)
In article <1368@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > >All the investigators, and J&J, seem to have ruled out (or are >carefully not mentioning) the possibility of employee sabotage. >The prevailing theory is that some person tampered with the >tamper-proof packaging at or near the stores since the tainted >bottles came from different lots. As I understand it, though, >they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where >it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify >the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have >happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it >was ruled out. Anyone know why? >-- >ken perlow ***** ***** Because the capsules were *not* manufactured at the same place. This is one of the most elementary things for investigators to look at, and you can bet that the wouldn't overlook a situation where all the tainted pills came from the same place. The distribution channels for the pills apparantly were so different as to imply that they were tampered with at the store level. Now, if we would just move over-the-counter drug packages behind the counter so that nobody could walk in and place a contaminated package back on the shelf, perhaps the problem wouldn't be so bad. -- --MKR The first half of a project takes 90% of the time. The other half takes the other 90%.
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (03/18/86)
>> Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the >>odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks away from >>each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. > I'm not sure I buy this reasoning. In other words they make two cartons of > bottles and route one to (say) North Carolina and the next one on the line > to Hawaii? > It would seem to me very probable that if someone tampered with > bottles from two different cartons in a row (say during a few minutes > no one was watching) they would both end up in the same area (if not > the same store.) Not a proof of anything, but I don't buy the opposite > judgement on the probabilities as proving anything either here. (of > course you probably need some facts to break this argument, but for > now it seems to me one guess is as good as the other, and I doubt > anyone is about to hand us any facts.) > -Barry Shein, Boston University You haven't considered the whole scenario: Only five tainted bottles are made at the plant (Either together or maybe in two smaller sets, so that they end up cased together). One case iwth tainted bottles is shipped to one major chain distributor, another to another major chain distributor. Each distributor sends it's case to any store anywhere in the United States probably through three or four levels of distribution. In this process both cases and all five bottles end up in two stores less than a mile apart. This is where probability kicks in and pipes up, "SAY WHAT??". --j.a.tainter Time is an addition, we can't live without.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/19/86)
In article <1377@ihuxn.UUCP>, gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP writes: > But is that really true? Let's say the culprit tampers with five > bottles at the factory. They're on the line, one right after the other. > Odds are, those 5 will stay together for a while, through a lot of > packing and distribution (assuming that the stuff is shipped in > fairly large lots). If the tainted bunch is ever broken up, I'd > expect that to happen very late in the distribution. And so finding > 2 tainted bottles within a 1/2 mile of each other would not be so > improbable. Mr. Perlow, you have consistently failed to make note of the simple fact that the contaminated capsules were *NOT* from the same lot #s. By definition this implies that they could not have come down the line "one right after the other". Kindly stick to the facts when making wild and unfounded speculations about things you obviously do not understand. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (03/19/86)
>[I wrote] >> > they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where >> > it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify >> > the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have >> > happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it >> > was ruled out. Anyone know why? >> Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the >> odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks >> away from each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. >> >> --Greg >But is that really true? Let's say the culprit tampers with five >bottles at the factory. They're on the line, one right after the other. >Odds are, those 5 will stay together for a while, through a lot of >packing and distribution (assuming that the stuff is shipped in >fairly large lots). If the tainted bunch is ever broken up, I'd >expect that to happen very late in the distribution. And so finding >2 tainted bottles within a 1/2 mile of each other would not be so >improbable. Ummm... The tampered bottles came from entirely different runs - they were NOT one after another on the line. It's still possible, though, but would require a malcontent to poison exactly one bottle, wait a while, possibly go to an entirely different machine, poison a second bottle, and then somehow those 2 bottles have to beat the long odds and wind up a few blocks apart. -Mike Moroney ..decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-jon!moroney
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/20/86)
I've been hoping someone would give a more definite reference on this, but... I remember seeing a newspaper article, maybe 2 weeks ago, to the effect that although the "tamper-proof" seals on the poisoned bottles had appeared intact, sophisticated testing had shown that the seals had in fact been broken. Of course, this doesn't prove that the poisoning was done outside J&J, but taken together with the distribution-chain evidence, it seems conclusive to me. If it's true. Mark Brader
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (03/22/86)
In article <1377@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >> > they're *all* made at the same factory (in Puerto Rico) where >> > it would be a lot easier for some paranoid malcontent to modify >> > the contents before they're sealed. Why couldn't this have >> > happened? The reported line is simply that it didn't, or it >> > was ruled out. Anyone know why? > >> Simple probability. Since they ARE all made at the same factory, the >> odds on two bottles tainted at the factory showing up a few blocks >> away from each other, and so far nowhere else, are astronomical. >> >But is that really true? Let's say the culprit tampers with five >bottles at the factory. They're on the line, one right after the other. >Odds are, those 5 will stay together for a while, through a lot of >packing and distribution (assuming that the stuff is shipped in >fairly large lots). If the tainted bunch is ever broken up, I'd >expect that to happen very late in the distribution. And so finding >2 tainted bottles within a 1/2 mile of each other would not be so >improbable. If the culprit tampers with five bottles, one right after the other, they would probably end up in the same area, and in the same lot. When you get contaminated bottles from *different* lots ending up in the same place, it is much more likely that they got contaminated after they left the factory. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/23/86)
>...Now, if we would >just move over-the-counter drug packages behind the counter so that >nobody could walk in and place a contaminated package back on the >shelf, perhaps the problem wouldn't be so bad. > > --MKR There you have it, now that's a consumer issue! Back in the dark ages I remember going to my local pharmacist who (typically) had a store with desk-height counters around 270 degrees of the store and shelves only he could get at behind them. The center aisle(s) was reserved for hot-water bottles etc. You told him what you wanted, he fetched it for you. The intent was clearly to let you know that only he (or his employees) could touch the medicines, and I'm sure it worked. (This was otc drugs as well as, of course, prescription medications.) In come the drug supermarkets crushing these small-business people in their paths with their open racks and mega-aisles and disinterested pimply employees. In come the tamperers, it should have been predictable as that's why the original pharmacies were set up that way! So, we pay with our lives to maximize profits and mass-marketing techniques, ah progress. Does anyone remember GROCERIES who also would be set-up so only the proprietor could get at most of the food? (hey, I'm only 33 and grew up in NYC, this sort of business must still exist in some places far from the burger king.) Would the govt DARE to make a law that says all otc drugs and similar products must be shelved such that only employees can touch them (behind counters, locked cabinets, whatever?) Nah, Federated Stores and Rite-aid would be down their throats with their lobbyists. -Barry Shein, Boston University