5 ms·

dont move the goalposts. (1) OP said big pharma wants to downplay HCQ because it doesnt make them as much money. (2) reply says that the fact that pharma dona

dont move the goalposts. (1) OP said big pharma wants to downplay HCQ because it doesnt make them as much money. (2) reply says that the fact that pharma donated millions of doses contradicts that (3) OP counters that pharma is donating millions of doses because it gives them an epic tax write-off it has nothing to do with donations being bad. it has to do with the fact that pharma is always doing whats best for them, and if its also best for patients that's a happy coincidence, but they frequently act in opposite of whats best for patients (e.g. price gouging on insulin, in this case possibly downplaying the efficacy of a cheap drug HCQ), and that's something we should notice and call out

dogma1138 7y ago
That’s fine however it doesn’t bode with the original assertion that it’s downplayed HCQ if anything it somewhat sensationalized it. I have no problems believing that BigPharma does what is good for BigPharma in this case getting good PR, a tax write off and having their most valuable customers as in those with chronic conditions which means pretty much most people once they hit 50-60 to stay alive so they can sell their patented drugs to their insurers and HMOs is a much more believable strategy than some conspiracy that BigPharma is downplaying HCQ because they can’t make money on it.
- aabeshou 7y ago
  - I think Trump is the one who sensationalized it, not pharma surrogates, but I may be wrong - I'm not committed to this particular conspiracy theory but I jumped in here because I don't like when people try to dismiss conspiracies out of hand as if it's crazy to think that pharma does things like this constantly. There's this free market ideology that exonerates companies and argues that self-interested behavior leads to positive outcomes, so I was reacting to what I sensed of that
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    It’s perfectly acceptable to dismiss conspiracy theories that not only go against the actual narrative but against common sense.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
tomcam 7y ago
> dont move the goalposts. Thought I was asking for clarification. What goalposts did I move?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dogma1138 7y ago

That’s fine however it doesn’t bode with the original assertion that it’s downplayed HCQ if anything it somewhat sensationalized it. I have no problems believing that BigPharma does what is good for BigPharma in this case getting good PR, a tax write off and having their most valuable customers as in those with chronic conditions which means pretty much most people once they hit 50-60 to stay alive so they can sell their patented drugs to their insurers and HMOs is a much more believable strategy than some conspiracy that BigPharma is downplaying HCQ because they can’t make money on it.

aabeshou 7y ago
- I think Trump is the one who sensationalized it, not pharma surrogates, but I may be wrong - I'm not committed to this particular conspiracy theory but I jumped in here because I don't like when people try to dismiss conspiracies out of hand as if it's crazy to think that pharma does things like this constantly. There's this free market ideology that exonerates companies and argues that self-interested behavior leads to positive outcomes, so I was reacting to what I sensed of that
- dogma1138 7y ago
  It’s perfectly acceptable to dismiss conspiracy theories that not only go against the actual narrative but against common sense.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

tomcam 7y ago

> dont move the goalposts. Thought I was asking for clarification. What goalposts did I move?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]