Any non-pro-China sources for this?
Removed by mod
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
That is not true at all. Posting content from disreputable sources encourages the uninformed to see the source as reliable when it is not. Posting these stories from propaganda sources is always harmful. There is no excuse for it when you could have simply taken the time to find a legitimate source for it. If none is found, then it would have been more wise to not post it at all.
You were quick to become offended when the source you posted was called out for its weakness. Instead of being defensive and attacking the commenter who questioned the legitimacy of the source, just own up to the fact that you should have chosen a better source to begin with.
3 of OPs 4 posts are pro-china pieces. Wonder if he can tell us what happened in Tiananmen Square in April 1989
Maybe if the US would start doing something to combat emissions instead of literally increasing the amount of electricity they generate from fossil fuel sources, I can post some pro-US pieces too. US primary energy production from fossil fuels has increased by more than 40% since 2010. The climate is the single biggest issue faced by the world today and the US is more concerned with protecting the profits of billionaire O&G executives than doing anything about it.
Maybe discredit the source, then? The commenter did no work to demonstrate that the statements claimed in the article were illegitimate. It should be trivial, given that the article (and myself) cites an SEC report.
I cited the claim in the article. It’s an entirely fact-based claim. Why are you so offended by facts?
The only person who seems offended in this post is you. Find an alternate source, or don’t, but when your only source is an unreliable one, don’t be upset when people don’t take it seriously.
(None of what I said changes regardless of whether or not your article is 100% factual.)
A factual story is unreliable because you don’t like it?
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
Their source is literally public information. Is an SEC report somehow unreliable, too?
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
Last I checked, there’s no SEC filing indicating that I have sex with goats. The evidence is literally public.
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
An SEC filing is an unreliable source?
That’s not a reference to source, that’s just words that claim these things happened. The only references to that price point seem to be from this article or articles that reference this article.
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
I did the opposite of ignoring them. I read through and tried to figure out by the sources whether they’re lying.
Blindly trusting a clearly biased source as you do is way more dangerous. Blindly defending them is worse. But perhaps this data does exist and I just suck at finding it.
Removed by mod
So, what exactly about this drug is hard to manufacture? Is it solely the “intellectual property” rights associated with it?
Or does it require some rare materials or difficult manufacturing process?
Almost all pharmaceuticals are driven by the cost of drug discovery and studies. You want the cost of drugs to be enough to drive investment into new drugs, but not so much that it becomes impractical for people to afford.
I mean yeah, the entire point is to maximize profit.
I was just curious if this was an inflated price due to “intellectual property rights” associated with the drug, which it appears to be.
I wonder how much it costs to actually manufacture. I feel like more people should understand that before they accept paying $8k or even $800 for a drug.
Junshi owns the IP and is licensing it out to Coherus.
America has to charge more because of R&D.
Removed by mod
It’s a joke about the usual American response as to why their medication costs so much.
Removed by mod
