← Back to context

Comment by nozzlegear

17 days ago

> Please engage with the substance of the argument put in front of you.

Back at you bub. My original comment was addressing why a quote from the guy who would be most affected by drug prices changing is hog wash, and you skillfully dodged my whole point to talk about R&D, investments and revenue. I didn't write my comment to dive into those things, I wrote it to point out that Pfizer's CEO would say anything if it means his company will get more money.

5 comments

nozzlegear

Reply
estearum  17 days ago

Your point being that you don't trust the words of a pharma CEO?

Fine! Why is that relevant to me?

Just because you're starting from the prior of "pharma CEOs are liars" doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people find it quite helpful to hear from the most powerful and most informed people on issues they want to learn about, even if you have to discount them due to conflicted interests (spoiler alert: nearly everyone who's well-informed on an issue will have some type of conflict to be discounted).

Evidently you are fine writing the words of Pfizer's CEO down to zero value, which is fine!

That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.

"Applying basic logic gets me to a similar conclusion as Pfizer's CEO, but Pfizer's CEO is a liar and conflicted and can't be trusted, therefore... [ ??? ]"

Edit in response to your edit: Don't act as if I introduced revenue/investment/R&D/etc after you raised the issue about Bourla's quote. That was the entire basis of the conversation from the start. Profoundly low-quality contribution to just chime in with "pharma CEO is conflicted." Yeah, everyone is aware of that. That's why there's an entire comment around the quote.

  • nozzlegear  17 days ago

    Literally you yourself said a few comments above that you "doubt Pfizer et al will just outright stop selling medications to France." It sounds like you don't trust his words either, so why are you going to bat for this guy?

    > That's why I provided an alternative path by which applying your own critical thinking skills would get you to the same conclusion.

    To be clear, the only thing I've taken issue with here is his own words and how you've quoted him. I don't believe I've said anything regarding your overall position on drug prices and pharma profits, so it's weird that you're attacking me like I've specifically taken a position against it.