# With friends like us, what do the UK and Canada need with enemies? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 23, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433 "2009-08-23T22:56:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/61 "2009-08-24T15:03:59Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It would be interesting to compare how much US firms spend on “promotion” vs. how much they spend on “R&D” of new drugs (excluding the amounts spend on so-called “me too” drugs designed to extend or “evergreen” patents, which should righfully be added to the “promotional” spending). Can you give an example of these “me-too”/“evergreen” drugs? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/62 "2009-08-24T15:07:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Can you give an example of these “me-too”/“evergreen” drugs? [http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/222220-1.html](http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/222220-1.html) " Critics say the brand-name companies often defend patents they know to be invalid; and resort to paying generic makers to stay off the market. Tamoxifen is a case in point. Tamoxifen, a drug to prevent re-occurrence of certain kinds of breast cancer, is sold under the brand-name Nolvadex by AstraZeneca. In 1985, Barr Laboratories, a major generic manufacturer, submitted an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of tamoxifen. In 1987, it amended the ANDA to include a Paragraph IV Certification. Imperial Chemical, which held the patent, sued to enforce the patent. In 1992, following a trial, a federal judge ruled the patent invalid. Imperial appealed. Then, in March 1993, Barr settled with Zeneca, a former subsidiary of Imperial. In the settlement, the parties agreed to ask the appellate court to vacate the decision holding the tamoxifen patent invalid. Zeneca agreed to issue a license to Barr to sell tamoxifen, and to supply Barr with the product. So long as the patent is not invalidated, other parties cannot enter the market. " ---
**Author:** ![Marienee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@Marienee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marienee)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/63 "2009-08-24T15:10:38Z")
In the interest of adding data, it appears that in the US, pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D, at least in 2004. In Europe the estimates are a third to half as much spent on promotion as on R&D. [Cite](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001) ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/64 "2009-08-24T15:14:07Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > [http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/222220-1.html](http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/222220-1.html) > > " Critics say the brand-name companies often defend patents they know to be invalid; and resort to paying generic makers to stay off the market. > > Tamoxifen > is a case in point. Tamoxifen, a drug to prevent re-occurrence of certain kinds of breast cancer, is sold under the brand-name Nolvadex by AstraZeneca. > > In 1985, Barr Laboratories, a major generic manufacturer, submitted an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of tamoxifen. In 1987, it amended the ANDA to include a Paragraph IV Certification. Imperial Chemical, which held the patent, sued to enforce the patent. In 1992, following a trial, a federal judge ruled the patent invalid. Imperial appealed. > > Then, in March 1993, Barr settled with Zeneca, a former subsidiary of Imperial. In the settlement, the parties agreed to ask the appellate court to vacate the decision holding the tamoxifen patent invalid. Zeneca agreed to issue a license to Barr to sell tamoxifen, and to supply Barr with the product. So long as the patent is not invalidated, other parties cannot enter the market. " That can’t be right. AstraZeneca is Anglo-Swedish and Imperial is a British/Dutch thing. But all the drugs are researched by and created by American companies! They fund our cheap healthcare and cheap drugs, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/65 "2009-08-24T15:22:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It isn’t that simple. > > Way it works is this: > > The basis for making money in the pharma industry is the ownership and marketing of intellectual property in drugs. This involves ownership of limited monopolies (patent rights) to sell drugs in a particular country, and the marketing of those drugs to the general public and physicians. Of the two forms of marketing, marketing to the general public is by far the most costly (TV ads, glossy magazines, etc.). > > Governments grant patent monopolies to encourage innovation. Owning a monopoly provides good basis for charging monopoly prices. In order to avoid abuses, governments set certain terms on these monopolies, too. There is no such thing as a truly “free market” in drugs, as a patent is by definition a restriction on the market. > > In return for granting patent monopolies, governments set terms. In Canada, these terms include an elaborate mechanism for setting maximum prices - The Patent Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB). In addition, given that many Canadians (not all - over 65 or on assistance) are publicly insured for drug costs, public plans (having immense bargaining power) bargain for price reductions in return for placing drugs (patented or not) on their “Formularies”. Private plans in the US do the same, but lack the same amount of bargaining power. Well, I understand this, I guess. But my question remains. If re-importing drugs from Canada will drive prices up in Canada, why is that something the US should be concerned about? Your idea of eliminating patents is too large an issue for me to address. Your post has raised some questions in my mind (thanks). I think I am going to open a thread in GD and ask them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/66 "2009-08-24T15:32:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If re-importing drugs from Canada will drive prices up in Canada, why is that something the US should be concerned about? It won’t, and you shouldn’t. It won’t, because the drug companies will shit themselves en masse at the idea of their favourite cash cow suddenly deciding they’ve had enough. They will do two things: 1. They will hire the best lawyers they can in Canada to try to block any purchase of drugs there by the US government, probably arguing this goes outwith the legislation enacted by Canada. 2. They will bribe politicans on both sides of the border to make sure it doesn’t happen. The drug companies do not charge you so much because they need to. They do so because they can. Where normal market forces would prevent them from abusing their position, pharmaceutical companies have you over a barrel - high costs to entry of the market, and a proven history of being prepared to work together to keep other people out. It is one of the few cases where there is a clear need for regulatory oversight of an industry to avoid very predatory behaviour. The idea that in being fleeced in this manner you’re actually helping out others is laughable on every fucking level. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/67 "2009-08-24T15:36:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, I understand this, I guess. But my question remains. > > If re-importing drugs from Canada will drive prices up in Canada, why is that something the US should be concerned about? > > Your idea of eliminating patents is too large an issue for me to address. > > Your post has raised some questions in my mind (thanks). I think I am going to open a thread in GD and ask them. > > Regards, > Shodan The effect of re-importation on a large scale is unpredictable. Since it results in drug companies in effect competing against themselves, the most likely first impulse of the US companies will be to refuse to sell to the Canadian market. However, that will not work very well for them, since there are legal mechanisms for “compulsory licensing” of patented products where the patent-holder refuses to actually excercise its patent rights - you cannot take out a patent and then simply refuse to sell your product. [It should be noted that it is a fact of life for innovative drug companies that there are hungry generic manufacturers waiting impatiently to make generic copies of any and all of their products.] The result would eventually be that generics happily make the same products under Canadian price controls, under “compulsory license” - and just as happily export to the US market. The victims will be the US drug companies, not Canadians. In summary, it is hard to imagine how your scenario would work. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/68 "2009-08-24T15:39:06Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > That can’t be right. AstraZeneca is Anglo-Swedish and Imperial is a British/Dutch thing. It’s right. ICI’s biopharmaceutical operations were spun off into the wholly independent Zeneca Group, which later merged with Swedish firm Astra to become AstraZeneca. ICI itself was later bought out by Dutch firm Akzo Nobel. The Swedish and Dutch connections came along after the litigation took place, but in any case, there’s no reason a British company couldn’t be a subsidiary of a Dutch one, or a British-Swedish company be a subsidiary of a British-Dutch one. Saab’s automotive division is a subsidiary of General Motors (well, the US Federal government now, I suppose). Burger King, a US company, was previously owned by a UK-Irish conglomerate (Diageo). ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/69 "2009-08-24T15:49:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s right. > > ICI’s biopharmaceutical operations were spun off into the wholly independent Zeneca Group, which later merged with Swedish firm Astra to become AstraZeneca. > > ICI itself was later bought out by Dutch firm Akzo Nobel. > > The Swedish and Dutch connections came along after the litigation took place, but in any case, there’s no reason a British company couldn’t be a subsidiary of a Dutch one, or a British-Swedish company be a subsidiary of a British-Dutch one. > > Saab’s automotive division is a subsidiary of General Motors (well, the US Federal government now, I suppose). > > Burger King, a US company, was previously owned by a UK-Irish conglomerate (Diageo). I was being sarcastic. I’m fed up of hearing on this forum how all foreign countries get cheap drugs after all the research and development is done by US companies and the US consumer bears the brunt of the costs. It has become the new “we saved your asses in WW2” for me. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/70 "2009-08-24T15:53:00Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I’m fed up of hearing on this forum how all foreign countries get cheap drugs after all the research and development is done by US companies and the US consumer bears the brunt of the costs. It has become the new “we saved your asses in WW2” for me. I’m not entirely sure that’s what they’re saying. The argument is not that US companies develop all the drugs, it’s that US consumers bear the cost; European and other non-US bio/pharma companies sell just as many drugs in the US as American companies do, so they would _also_ be benefiting just as much from the “bonus money” they make from US consumers, which in theory fund the majority of R&D. I haven’t seen anyone actually saying that non-US companies don’t develop any new drugs or anything along those lines, just that US consumers pay for them, which is a much less specious (though probably still incorrect) line of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/71 "2009-08-24T15:55:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not entirely sure that’s what they’re saying. Not specifically in this thread. It has been all over this forum whenever healthcare is mentioned. I was making a joke using sarcasm. Letting off steam. We’re in the pit. Edit: Just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, but I’ve seen lots of examples over the past few months of people implying that every single medical breakthrough comes via the US. Not that I’m going to search for any as, frankly, I can’t be arsed. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/72 "2009-08-24T16:45:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As I’ve pointed out in various ‘comparative healthcare’ threads, the cost of doing business in virtually every other industrialized nation is much lower because direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is banned. > > Only the US and New Zealand allow it. “Okay! Ban meeting…” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/73 "2009-08-24T18:59:08Z")
[http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/health-insurance-employees-lobbying-congress/](http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/health-insurance-employees-lobbying-congress/) There are 50,000 lobbyists besieging congress and the senate. They always get their way. The top drug companies make drugs in 65 different countries. We all have imported drugs. They do not compete. They get patents to protect themselves from competition. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/74 "2009-08-24T20:22:08Z")
> [@WILLASS](#): > > Exactly! Imagine how annoyed you’d be as a Dr after the years of medical school, the years of 96hr weeks on the emergency ward etc. to be then quizzed by some advert addled simpleton telling you how to do your job? It annoys me when people tell me how to run my projects and they’re kind of allowed to! > > (just to clarify I don’t when it’s constructive criticism from members of the project board, my boss etc. but random staff members who get involved on ‘what’s best’ even though they have no idea of the constraints imposed leading me to have to re-explain information that was put in the public domain to try to avoid this situation) > > I go to a Dr because I know jack squat about medicine - if you believe you know best why bother even going? Why would you believe an advert _selling_ you a product over a medical proffesional who has made it his/her lifes work to help heal the sick? Yeah, advertisers have your best interests at heart - the massive profits are just a happy by-product of that! And then told by the government that YOU can’t charge that for that test. Nicely done sir. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/75 "2009-08-24T20:22:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > yes, and if the US had Canada’s deal then Canada wouldn’t be able to have it anymore because then the US wouldn’t be subsidizing Canada’s lower prices anymore. Except the U.S. isn’t subsidizing Canada’s low prices. Holy shit, how many times do we have to go over this? Prices in the US are set by what the market will bear. Nothing else. The market price in the US is what it is; the market-clearing price will be set by supply and demand, which doesn’t change if the Canadian market starts paying more or less than it did yesterday. If anything, Canadian price controls on average LOWER the cost for U.S. consumers, since some U.S. consumers near the border can go to Canada to get cheaper drugs. There is no mechanism by which American consumers can “subsidize” Canadian consumers. The drug companeis charge the optimum price in all markets at all times. They’re not going to give you cheaper drugs if they can get a few more dollars out of someone in Edmonton… why would they be so stupid? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/76 "2009-08-24T20:26:00Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let’s pretend that the situation is reversed, and that Canada has stupidly expensive medicine and it’s really cheap in the US. > > Canada advocates that medicine cost more in the US so that the price “evens out” a wee bit. But people in the US will end up paying significantly more, and people in Canada won’t end up paying significantly less. > > Would you honestly, truthfully, genuinely say “Gosh, that’s fair. I’m quite happy to pay even more money for something that’s already expensive just so people in a neighbouring country don’t feel so bad about the situation”? > > Of course you wouldn’t. And if you would, you’d be in a tiny minority along with other Altruists like Mother Theresa and Gandhi. Well the system can’t work in reverse considering Canada’s population is 1/10th the size of America’s. But the reality is if we were to equalize the price, so that both American’s and Canadians were paying the exact same that would mean that Canada’s drug prices would increase while America’s went down. > [@](#): > > The Barossa Valley is one of the world’s great wine producing regions and is located in South Australia. There are some excellent Reds coming out there, which can be had for as little as $2 a bottle for “cleanskin” wine and about $10-25 a bottle for the decent stuff. It goes up from there, of course, as all wine does… Well of course your domestic wine is going to be cheaper there than here. 😉 I’ll look for stuff from The Barossa Valley, what kinds of wines come from there? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/77 "2009-08-24T20:29:18Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Except the U.S. isn’t subsidizing Canada’s low prices. Holy shit, how many times do we have to go over this? Yes, it is. The drug companies charge cheaper prices in the rest of the world because they make so much in the American market. > [@](#): > > Prices in the US are set by what the market will bear. Nothing else. The market price in the US is what it is; the market-clearing price will be set by supply and demand, which doesn’t change if the Canadian market starts paying more or less than it did yesterday. If anything, Canadian price controls on average LOWER the cost for U.S. consumers, since some U.S. consumers near the border can go to Canada to get cheaper drugs. And you honestly believe that if America were paying Canadian prices it wouldn’t raise the prices worldwide? Seriously? That bit about border Americans going to Canada for cheaper drugs is all sorts of fucked up. We can go to Mexico for cheaper drugs too but that benefits a very small fraction of our populace. It doesn’t benefit ME in any way. > [@](#): > > There is no mechanism by which American consumers can “subsidize” Canadian consumers. The drug companeis charge the optimum price in all markets at all times. They’re not going to give you cheaper drugs if they can get a few more dollars out of someone in Edmonton… why would they be so stupid? Actually that’s precisely how it works. They charge cheaper worldwide based on what the market will bear there while we get gouged. They provide Canada with those benefits because the country negotiates drug prices as a whole, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/78 "2009-08-24T20:41:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, it is. The drug companies charge cheaper prices in the rest of the world because they make so much in the American market. No, it’s because that’s what we’re willing to pay. They don’t have to play, they can walk away from a market of 33 million if they want to. I’m quite sure that pharmaceutical companies would be happy to charge us what they do you were we to allow it. > [@](#): > > They provide Canada with those benefits because the country negotiates drug prices as a whole, obviously. See? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/79 "2009-08-24T21:01:24Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > No, it’s because that’s what we’re willing to pay. They don’t have to play, they can walk away from a market of 33 million if they want to. I’m quite sure that pharmaceutical companies would be happy to charge us what they do you were we to allow it. But the drugs are produced at all because of their massive profits IN AMERICA. > [@](#): > > See? See? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433/80 "2009-08-24T21:02:26Z")
As the risk of repeating myself; (roundly ignored no doubt as it, yknow, made sense!) “Um, American’s pay more for their meds because they have a ‘for profit’ model for health care.” You can keep inventing reasons that blame others, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, but the truth is, it’s just that simple. Think for a minute how rich the firemen would be if you introduced a ‘for profit’ model to that, already socialized public service. The firemen would love it, who’s not going to kick back a little something to the guy with the hose when your house is on fire? It’d be profitable though, you have to admit. And if you truly have a free market then why not? But that would be heartless and cruel, profiting from someones’ misfortune like that, firemen wouldn’t be very respected and you’d be attracting the wrong kinds of people to be firemen. Pretty soon you’d be heard complaining, “Our fire services are so expensive and those Canadians don’t have to pay, it’s not fair, waaaaah!” Kind of like you’re doing here. The answer then, like the answer now, would be crystal clear for those without blinders on; you designed a ‘for profit’ system. Don’t complain when they exercise that prerogative and take healthy profits. If you don’t like it, that’s okay, but don’t blame the people who had the good sense to see that health care and profit should not be mixed. It’s really hard for me to believe that anyone is as dense as you’re seeming in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-us-what-do-the-uk-and-canada-need-with-enemies/507433.md?page=5)