Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (264516)	5/23/2008 3:06:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

1. You do not know the percentage of the budget spent on courses of drugs for the poor. Why did you bring it up then? I didn't bring up, "to provide full courses of their drugs for poor people", you did. I brought up that the free sample issue, and I noted that some of these samples help poor people (I know people who have benefited from them). The percentage that goes specifically to full courses of treatment and specifically for poor people is almost irrelevant, and is an issue you brought up not me. Poor people are helped even when they wind up paying some amount for some of the drugs, rather than getting all free samples. Even the non-poor are helped as well. This is only a minor issue. The real issue is the simple fact that if you take away or greatly reduce the profit from drugs, you get less new drugs. Your not focusing on the important issue, or even the whole of the irrelevant counter-argument about advertising and promotion budgets, or even the secondary part of that irrelevant distraction, which is represented by the free sample issue; instead you focus on a subset of that secondary part. Than because I don't have precise data on a subset of a secondary part, or an irrelevant point, you attack me for not looking at the facts.