3 ms·
If you want to go ahead and remove again the specific context of my question/assertion after I re-added them back together, to emphasize how important that cont
by yebyen 3y ago
If you want to go ahead and remove again the specific context of my question/assertion after I re-added them back together, to emphasize how important that context was, go ahead and do it. I said what I said, in the order that I said it, on purpose.
I put the context back there together literally in the comment right above this one (and it was there in my top comment, too) because that was the context that I felt was most important, but now you've cut it right back out again. Are you sure?
Humalog as we know it today was first released in the 90's and it's still patented (or, at least Eli Lilly is the only company that can produce it, the specific "it" that we mean when we say Humalog and not "biosimilar to Humalog".) What are the actual enhancements that have been released in 2018-2019 to warrant the granting of a new patent for Eli Lilly's Humalog? Or is it out of patent? What's a biosimilar?
(Why can't anyone make Humalog other than companies that own patents on insulin, if Humalog has been out of patent since the mid 2010's?)
- AlbertCory 3y agoall you had to say originally was: "...because it's an argument in bad faith? I too don't see why drug patents are "obvious" or clear case that it is helpful enough to be in the public interest to maintain drug patents. Is there any evidence that ALL drug patents actually enter the public domain productively at their end of their expiration period?" [note the ALL] Since you refuse to just admit you were wrong, we are done here. Go ahead and have the last word if that's important to you. I won't be replying any more.
- yebyen 3y agoLOL you're right, we could have had a civil conversation and productive dialog if I had just included that one word in my first post! My bad.