I have a buddy who has been the CEO of two startup pharma companies- and he sez they would gladly back a money loser like that just for the publicity, hell they’d kill for the chance.
So for every "Big Pharma’ sitting pretty on “that lucrative chemo money” there’s a 1000+ competitors that would happily see them go bankrupt and take over. It’s very cut-throat competitive.
They also ignore the fact that most women who get abortions are married.
Gays shouldn’t be allowed to parent because “children need a mother and a father.” Brought to you by the same people who think single pregnant woman (and lesbians!) should be forced to carry to term. And, if they are not hypocrites, these woman (and lesbians!) should be FORCED to give up the baby they have carried for nine months!
That is so fucked up!
True.
There’s a sort of first-glance veneer of credibility to it, sure, that’s why it’s so persistent. But doctors have cured all sorts of things from cave man days right up to the present.
Maybe it’s because I’m a professional, too. As an engineer, if someone told me that my profession was holding back the technology to make our cities earthquake proof, or to prevent power outages or something, I’d laugh out loud.
Then there’s the whole economic angle pointed out above. There’s more competition than you think. Sure, nobody is going to start another Pfizer in their garage, and the size of and regulations on these few huge pharmaceutical businesses make them a virtual oligopoly, but nobody is immune from competition.
It doesn’t have to be a startup, either. All that illegal back room collusion goes out the window as soon as Mallinckrodt sees a chance to eat Pfizer’s lunch. They might have the current pie all divvied up and each company’s slice agreed upon, but as soon as one of those companies sees a brand new pie entirely, they’re going to be all over it.
Doctors and Pharmaceutical CEOs get cancer, and have loved ones that get cancer. So you’re saying they’d rather die than reveal the secret of curing cancer.
The real illogic is that unless your purported cure for cancer is just magic, how do you know you have a cure for cancer? You don’t know how effective a treatment is unless you conduct clinical trials. How many news articles have you read about some promising new treatment, but years later they find that the treatment isn’t any more effective than existing treatments?
You can’t just have a secret cancer cure that you gave to one guy one time and it totally cured his cancer, because cancers go into remission. How do you know it was your magic treatment that did the trick? How do you know your magic treatment doesn’t have massive side effects?
Science just doesn’t work this way.
I firmly believe Norton and McAfee produce and release a wide variety of “viruses” as to maintain the need for their products. The viruses are designed to trigger “WE HAVE PROTECTED YOU FROM ANOTHER ATTACK!!!” messages in computers that have their software, and likely little else.
Oh, wait, this is one where the excuse doesn’t make sense. 
Jokes aside, here are a couple that don’t make sense:
Now, #2 actually happened. But GM didn’t kill it to keep people dependent upon cars - that issue was already decided by 1927 (the year GM started investing in streetcars), they killed it because it was wildly unprofitable. And the Red Car system wasn’t originally conceived as a public transportation company - it was used as a means to drive land speculation in Los Angeles during the 1910s-1920s. Henry Huntington would buy a vast track of land, run a Red Car line to that land, then sell the parcels. Cite. Scholarly cite. Another scholarly cite, this one not a book.
Simply: Expansion when you use buses is easy. Expansion when you need the massive capital investment in land, rails, and construction is a ball buster, especially when you are competing against buses.
It was dead because it was also woefully slow and dated. I remember riding the last bits of it with my Mom. It was so slow you’d just run a bit and jump on, and no one paid the fare. It wasnt any faster than cycling.
I don’t think you understood what monstro said.
She asked, for those who believe both that abortion is murder, and that women should be punished for promiscuity, which of the two reasons is more commonly stated in public. Obviously it is the first. But you can’t determine anyone’s “real” reason for opposing abortion from that - people who oppose abortion because they believe it to be murder say the same thing, and are being completely honest about their motive.
Even monstro wasn’t talking about anyone’s “real” reason - she only mentioned people who believe both.
Regards,
Shodan
The one I’ve heard is that there was a quick decision, in view of the upcoming election, that the top priority was to minimize the significance of the event, and invoking military assistance would do the opposite.
And yet they make an exception for cases where women got pregnant as a result of rape. So does that mean those fetuses aren’t human or that it’s OK to murder some humans?
If they are only expressing one belief out loud it is lucky we have mind readers like yourself to tell us about their hidden motives.
Why would you strongly advise against it?
The usual rationale is political expedience and you can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
If you have ever worked in a bureaucracy the motivation becomes clear. If you do something like order an attack and it goes bad then it is your fault. If you do nothing and it goes bad then it is not your fault. Thus the safe decision is always to do nothing and blame others.
But people nevertheless do things, demonstrating that your conclusion is false. CYA is a real thing, but let’s not deal in absolutes.
Besides, the outcome of Benghazi clearly illustrates that the CYA principle should have been to beef up security. If you increase security and no attack occurs, not a big deal. Decrease security and an attack occurs? You just lost your next election. Obama and Hillary clearly knew this. So if they made a mistake, it was for some other reason than bureaucratic CYA.
Except that the “stand-down order” as these folks claim is that Obama and/or Hillary specifically told US forces not to assist US embassy personnel under attack, when those US forces were all armed and ready to go. That accusation is akin to a fire engine, and firefighters, being all ready to go help put out a house blaze, but then being told, “No, don’t go, let them burn.”
At that juncture, actively *denying *assistance goes far further than merely sitting on your hands and not doing something. Which is what the Benghazi conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense about.
Because I have an opinion on the matter which I will give if asked.
My opinion is not nearly strong enough to enforce upon others, or give without solicitation.
If you are asking why am I of that opinion, I cannot answer that, other than to say for the same reason that I enjoy a particular shade of violet.
Horror movies are constantly showing us big evil corporations that create monsters that they expect will bring them huge profits.
Sorry, but I can’t imagine the CEO at General Dynamics chortling gleefully about how much money the US Army would pay him for millions of flesh eating zombies!
Another one that doesn’t make sense is Flat-Earthers talking about how many different countries and entities are in on this conspiracy to make a flat Earth appear round to everyone, going so far as to doctor photographic images, etc…why and for what?