health

As COVID patent war rages on, pharma group seeks fairer future access

12 Comments
By Natalie Grover

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

12 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

"I just don't think we can believe a word that they propose," she said.

I also distrust Big Pharma, which is why I don't use their products.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

I also distrust Big Pharma, which is why I don't use their products

A personal choice but still irrational, medical interventions have increased the length and qualify of life beyond any reasonable doubt. And it is not even remotely believable everybody involved in health is in a conspiracy to hide the fact that pharmaceutical products are worthless or even damaging, these are drugs that doctors and scientists use for their own diseases, and for their family and friends as well.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

BroncoToday  07:29 am JST

I also distrust Big Pharma, which is why I don't use their products.

Perfectly reasonable.

The pharma companies are not providing their products for free, so obviously there is a collective agreement to be able to charge as much as possible.

Often physicians prescribe drugs they would not even use themselves.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Perfectly reasonable.

What is reasonable about not using pharmaceutical products? living a shorter less producitve life that ends by preventable/treatable diseases just so an industry can't profit for you is not reasonable.

Often physicians prescribe drugs they would not even use themselves.

How often? for the comment to be reasonable physicians would need to never use any product, then it would be justified to do the same, this is obviously not the case.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

What is reasonable about not using pharmaceutical products? living a shorter less producitve life that ends by preventable/treatable diseases just so an industry can't profit for you is not reasonable.

You are asking a question that is not relevant to anything presented in the article or in any comment, and is purely hypothetical.

How often? for the comment to be reasonable physicians would need to never use any product, then it would be justified to do the same, this is obviously not the case.

Who determines they would never need to use any products, when you wrote:

doctors and scientists use for their own diseases,

This would mean they would always have to use those drugs, which is easily proven false.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

You are asking a question that is not relevant to anything presented in the article or in any comment

Your comment said it was reasonable not to consume any pharmaceutical products, this is obviously not the case, as you have given up trying to defend that position, it is perfectly relevant to your comment and helps making you understand how it is not a reasonable position to take.

Who determines they would never need to use any products, when you wrote:

The original comment, that you mistakenly said was rational by saying it is better not to use any medicine, which would require health care professionals to actually do that in order to have an argument to defend it.

This would mean they would always have to use those drugs, which is easily proven false.

That is irrelevant, as long as the people recommending them use them (even if not all of them) that still is enough to prove the original comment is deeply irrational.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

With this article they are trying to give the impression people are begging for these products.

In fact, they would be much better off without them...

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I trust Big Pharma about as much as I trust Big Tobacco, which is less than zero.

Remember, " 4 out of 5 doctors smoke camels"

These companies are focused on one thing and one thing only, profit.

They want to convince you that you need their product and they want you to get addicted to it.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

With this article they are trying to give the impression people are begging for these products.

In fact, they would be much better off without them.

Any evidence for this? because the scientific consensus completely contradicts you.

These companies are focused on one thing and one thing only, profit.

They want to convince you that you need their product and they want you to get addicted to it.

Profiting from making safe and effective medical interventions is not bad by itself, it can even be a valid priority, by saying you don't use any of the products your argument is not that they oversell anything, your argument is that none of the products benefits you, which is what is irrational.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Any evidence for this? because the scientific consensus completely contradicts you.

Let's see the "scientific consensus"---oh, you don't have such a source.

Profiting from making safe and effective medical interventions is not bad by itself, it can even be a valid priority, by saying you don't use any of the products your argument is not that they oversell anything, your argument is that none of the products benefits you, which is what is irrational.

Of course this is just your opinion, and the a further outrageous claim that is not relevant to anything in the article or anyone's comments, and makes an illogical conclusion.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I trust Big Pharma about as much as I trust Big Tobacco, which is less than zero.

Remember, " 4 out of 5 doctors smoke camels"

Yes, but at least the health hazards of smoking are clearly indicated on the product, we can freely discuss these hazards, and we are not constantly told that EVERYONE should smoke regularly.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Let's see the "scientific consensus"---oh, you don't have such a source.

If what? vaccines being recommended as safe and effective? by this point it is out of the real of the believable that anybody ignores that any recognizable medical institutuion do says people are better with vaccines and drugs against covid than without them.

Of course this is just your opinion

Its an argument, do you have any counterargument that would disprove it? if something is logically congruent then you still have to disprove it to say is wrong. So what is mistaken about your quote? how can you prove it is false with logic?

Yes, but at least the health hazards of smoking are clearly indicated on the product, we can freely discuss these hazards, and we are not constantly told that EVERYONE should smoke regularly.

The same happens with everything else, including vaccines, the problem antivaxxer groups see is that people that only repeat disproved information are not allowed to do it in scientific channels, but this is something positive and desirable. Lying to the public to mislead them into making irrational decisions is not something that should be supported. The discussion about risks and ways to improve medical interventions is rich and easy to access for anybody with interest, and it is much better without disinformation polluting it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites