Drug firms 'block' cheap medicine

[manc-mag 1]

I think Fop should be made to put down a minimum ten line, clear and concise skeleton argument as a 'deposit' or 'guarantee' before being allowed to participate in these arguments anymore. The cheek of him demanding people 'discuss' or 'answer' his questions when he unashamedly ignores well structured arguments at will has meant his credibility has been shot to shit for months now. Tiresome tbh.

 

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along.

 

On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect.

 

Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether.

 

Seriously, it's tedious.

 

Any more tedious than the HMS Irony?

 

I think I asked you previously to point out the irony tbh but you didn't, which sort of backs up the point.

 

Theres no argument here by the way, I'm just saying how illegitimate your arguments have become now they are so devoid of credibility.

 

If you're not willing to put them up to scrutiny then you dont have any locus standi tbh.

[Fop 1]

I think Fop should be made to put down a minimum ten line, clear and concise skeleton argument as a 'deposit' or 'guarantee' before being allowed to participate in these arguments anymore. The cheek of him demanding people 'discuss' or 'answer' his questions when he unashamedly ignores well structured arguments at will has meant his credibility has been shot to shit for months now. Tiresome tbh.

 

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along.

 

On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect.

 

Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether.

 

Seriously, it's tedious.

 

Any more tedious than the HMS Irony?

 

I think I asked you previously to point out the irony tbh but you didn't, which sort of backs up the point.

 

Theres no argument here by the way, I'm just saying how illegitimate your arguments have become now they are so devoid of credibility.

 

If you're not willing to put them up to scrutiny then you dont have any locus standi tbh.

 

The fact you seem utterly oblivious to it just makes it more amusing.

[Guest alex]

Tbf, I think (from an outsider looking in) Fop seems to know what he's on about when debating this subject. What clearly irks him and makes him withdraw into his silliness is that at least a couple of posters on here obviously know a lot more about the subject than he does and he can't bring himself to openly admit it.

[ChezGiven 0]

The EU completely supports TRIPS so would it not be EU + me versus Chompsky?

Nope, as it come down to exploitation of the system (not whether the system should exist). So EU + Fop versus Chezzy.

 

You've just shifted position again, as manc-mag predicted some posts ago.

No I haven't, nice try to flannel for time though (and good job at ignoring my points, as usual ).

 

 

You said "And the people like Chezzy that try to defend that suffering and deaths in the name of profit" so i responded with the post above about sickness and profit.

 

You then responded to that with a vague post about 'patents' a vast subject far beyond merely Servier's and AZ's delaying tactics.

 

Just like manc-mag predicted.

[manc-mag 1]

I think Fop should be made to put down a minimum ten line, clear and concise skeleton argument as a 'deposit' or 'guarantee' before being allowed to participate in these arguments anymore. The cheek of him demanding people 'discuss' or 'answer' his questions when he unashamedly ignores well structured arguments at will has meant his credibility has been shot to shit for months now. Tiresome tbh.

 

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along.

 

On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect.

 

Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether.

 

Seriously, it's tedious.

 

Any more tedious than the HMS Irony?

 

I think I asked you previously to point out the irony tbh but you didn't, which sort of backs up the point.

 

Theres no argument here by the way, I'm just saying how illegitimate your arguments have become now they are so devoid of credibility.

 

If you're not willing to put them up to scrutiny then you dont have any locus standi tbh.

 

The fact you seem utterly oblivious to it just makes it more amusing.

 

And finally, just ignoring the point I'm making. As expected.

[Fop 1]

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

Which is also factored into profits and "costs". What is someone willing to pay to make them better? The desperation involved requires the utmost safeguards for this industry.

 

There's a slave population of consumers if you will, exploitation of them is the easiest thing in the world if it's allowed.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

Aye that's another issue (and an important one too), just this issue is one that Chezzy previously denied happened at all and refused to discuss, but now it is not just "me" saying it, it is the EU saying it.

[Fop 1]

And finally, just ignoring the point I'm making. As expected.

Your "point" is part of the irony - you just can't or don't want to see it.

[ChezGiven 0]

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is.

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think giving speed to hyperactive children is also nuts. Endorsed by Neurologists everywhere though. Go figure.

[Guest alex]

Yup, whilst pretending they are "helping" people.

 

 

It's just Chezzy is so funny when he's saying this isn't happening...... yet the EU seem to think it is.

 

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other.

 

 

It's not.

 

It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you.

 

The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug.

 

Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind.

 

You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry?

 

Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something?

 

To answer your question. No. (proof in itself).

 

I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that.

 

The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.

 

I think giving speed to hyperactive children is also nuts. Endorsed by Neurologists everywhere though. Go figure.

It's wasted on them imo.

[Fop 1]

The EU completely supports TRIPS so would it not be EU + me versus Chompsky?

Nope, as it come down to exploitation of the system (not whether the system should exist). So EU + Fop versus Chezzy.

 

You've just shifted position again, as manc-mag predicted some posts ago.

No I haven't, nice try to flannel for time though (and good job at ignoring my points, as usual ).

 

 

You said "And the people like Chezzy that try to defend that suffering and deaths in the name of profit" so i responded with the post above about sickness and profit.

 

You then responded to that with a vague post about 'patents' a vast subject far beyond merely Servier's and AZ's delaying tactics.

 

Just like manc-mag predicted.

 

 

You said that the EU was on your side because it supported TRIPS (which is a very desperate strawman ), I said that's rubbish as it's down to exploitation of the system not whether the system should exists - which is exactly in line with what I've said all along.

 

 

Exploitation of the system (which leads to death and suffering in the name of profit) is wrong.

 

Fop and the EU stand shoulder to shoulder on this, you my dear Chezzy stand on the other side, back to the wall with your buttock cheeks firmly clenched.

[Fop 1]

 

The fact you seem utterly oblivious to it just makes it more amusing.

 

And finally, just ignoring the point I'm making. As expected.

 

Like I said.

[ChezGiven 0]

The EU completely supports TRIPS so would it not be EU + me versus Chompsky?

Nope, as it come down to exploitation of the system (not whether the system should exist). So EU + Fop versus Chezzy.

 

You've just shifted position again, as manc-mag predicted some posts ago.

No I haven't, nice try to flannel for time though (and good job at ignoring my points, as usual ).

 

 

You said "And the people like Chezzy that try to defend that suffering and deaths in the name of profit" so i responded with the post above about sickness and profit.

 

You then responded to that with a vague post about 'patents' a vast subject far beyond merely Servier's and AZ's delaying tactics.

 

Just like manc-mag predicted.

 

 

You said that the EU was on your side because it supported TRIPS (which is a very desperate strawman ), I said that's rubbish as it's down to exploitation of the system not whether the system should exists - which is exactly in line with what I've said all along.

 

 

Exploitation of the system (which leads to death and suffering in the name of profit) is wrong.

 

Fop and the EU stand shoulder to shoulder on this, you my dear Chezzy stand on the other side, back to the wall with your buttock cheeks firmly clenched.

 

 

Ahh, so you ignored the points in that post because you didnt understand them. Patent law doesnt cause suffering and illness, poverty does.

 

Stephen Rose, a competition partner at law firm Eversheds, said: “The European Commission has declared war on the pharmaceutical sector by questioning the legitimacy of a range of well established business practices.

 

"Today's provisional report is likely to lead to enforcement action to test whether individual companies' strategies infringe competition law."

 

"So the Commission will have its work cut out if it is going to mount legal challenges to the practices it has identified. Of course registration and vigorous defence of patents restricts competition. That is the whole point of having a patent. When does this activity go so far as to become something which the law should sanction?"

[Douggy B 0]

Fop again...cringe-worthy.

[Fop 1]

Fop again...cringe-worthy.

It's the EU, not me, take it up with your MEP.

[Fop 1]

The EU completely supports TRIPS so would it not be EU + me versus Chompsky?

Nope, as it come down to exploitation of the system (not whether the system should exist). So EU + Fop versus Chezzy.

 

You've just shifted position again, as manc-mag predicted some posts ago.

No I haven't, nice try to flannel for time though (and good job at ignoring my points, as usual ).

 

 

You said "And the people like Chezzy that try to defend that suffering and deaths in the name of profit" so i responded with the post above about sickness and profit.

 

You then responded to that with a vague post about 'patents' a vast subject far beyond merely Servier's and AZ's delaying tactics.

 

Just like manc-mag predicted.

 

 

You said that the EU was on your side because it supported TRIPS (which is a very desperate strawman ), I said that's rubbish as it's down to exploitation of the system not whether the system should exists - which is exactly in line with what I've said all along.

 

 

Exploitation of the system (which leads to death and suffering in the name of profit) is wrong.

 

Fop and the EU stand shoulder to shoulder on this, you my dear Chezzy stand on the other side, back to the wall with your buttock cheeks firmly clenched.

 

 

Ahh, so you ignored the points in that post because you didnt understand them. Patent law doesnt cause suffering and illness, poverty does.

 

Stephen Rose, a competition partner at law firm Eversheds, said: “The European Commission has declared war on the pharmaceutical sector by questioning the legitimacy of a range of well established business practices.

 

"Today's provisional report is likely to lead to enforcement action to test whether individual companies' strategies infringe competition law."

 

"So the Commission will have its work cut out if it is going to mount legal challenges to the practices it has identified. Of course registration and vigorous defence of patents restricts competition. That is the whole point of having a patent. When does this activity go so far as to become something which the law should sanction?"

 

No I addressed those points in a different post, you ignored THAT post.

 

 

Nice to see those quotes though, seems the drugs companies are -ing themselves over this.

 

 

 

(which is interesting as just a few days ago you were claiming that drugs companies didn't do this sort of thing at all )

Edited November 28, 2008 by Fop

[ChezGiven 0]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

[Fop 1]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

[ChezGiven 0]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

 

You said in another thread that you didnt know what you were talking about and admitted that i had owned you consistently on this topic for months.

Edited November 28, 2008 by ChezGiven

[Fop 1]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

 

You said in another thread that you didnt know what you were talking about and admitted that i had owned you consistently on this topic for months.

 

Ah yes that was the same thread you said that I was completely right about all this, I remember it well.

 

And now the EU does too.

[Renton 17633]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

 

You said in another thread that you didnt know what you were talking about and admitted that i had owned you consistently on this topic for months.

 

[Park Life 70]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

 

My mate was one of the main protagonists to get the German Govt onside reg generics.

[Fop 1]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

 

You said in another thread that you didnt know what you were talking about and admitted that i had owned you consistently on this topic for months.

 

Ah yes that was the same thread you said that I was completely right about all this, I remember it well.

 

And now the EU does too.

 

[Fop 1]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

 

My mate was one of the main protagonists to get the German Govt onside reg generics.

Hope he's already got private health insurance.

[Meenzer 13990]

I like the way this smiley points at the line that's just been written.

[Renton 17633]

Where did i say companies dont push to extend the patent on the drug they developed?

 

Heres how the world works Chompsky; a group of lawyers who produce generics drugs lobby Law-makers in the EC to change the law in their favour, the EC acts on this lobbying as they agree that they could save money if they change the law. Hence this story.

 

The fact that you think its a moral crusade is laughable really given the protagonists.

 

In all the prior threads.

 

It's a bit hard to deny it now of course.

 

 

 

That's the thing though, it doesn't really matter why the EU is doing it (probably because of who can offer the biggest back handers), what matter is it is being address (and that it happens whether people like yourself want to admit it or not ).

 

You said in another thread that you didnt know what you were talking about and admitted that i had owned you consistently on this topic for months.

 

Ah yes that was the same thread you said that I was completely right about all this, I remember it well.

 

And now the EU does too.

 

 

Laughing at yourself, how HTT of you.

 

Why don't you produce those posts you allege Chez made instead, I'd be interested to read them.