this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
273 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2690 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes? I agree with what you are paraphrasing from my comments and the article, that meth is dangerous because of its heightened toxicity, poor regulation and high dosages.

You parroted that part coherently and then afterward concluded that, no, you were wrong in the first place?

Well, I agree with that part too.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I didn't even look at your article. The way you phrase things makes it seem like Adderall has similar effects to meth. This couldn't be further from the truth, hence why you have gotten so much shit for your other comments. The active ingredient may be somewhat similar but everything else that is in it drastically changes the way it affects people.

These kinds of half-truths piss me off to no end, people do this all the time when they complain about the apparent price change of insulin. Guess what, you can still buy the cheap insulin - it's just utter dogshit compared to modern diabetes medication in which hundreds of billions had to be invested to get it where it is.

I already know what you want to type - people who are affected by diabetes shouldn't have to pay bajillions to stay alive, not the point but nice try

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

You not reading is exactly how you're manifesting "half-truths" that are simply facts(full-truths, if you will) that you don't understand or don't like.

I'm not "getting shit" for these comments, there is a bandwagon of people like you who don't want to read, learn, or admit their ignorance, and they know that making things up, deliberately misphrasing or changing the topic will get them worthless internet points, which is easier than learning something new.

So count them up.

And just to follow up on your irrelevant and incorrect tangent about diabetes, no, people shouldn't have to pay exorbitant and exploitative costs for any life-saving medication, and no it's not because of the amount of investment it took to develop modern insulin.

Older insulin was not the "utter dogshit" you claim, modern insulin is slightly less allergenic and slightly more effective, but again they both are insulin, and the reason the price is higher even though the process is simpler today is because there are a few exploitative companies controlling the patents; in countries with regulated medication prices, it costs a few dollars over production cost to buy medication of any kind. In unregulated countries were greedy people can charge as much as they want, medicines cost much more than they should to simply extract value from the most vulnerable people.

That's why medication costs different in different countries even though it is chemically identical.

Not sure why you chose such an easily disprovable point as the crux of your argument, but it does go hand in hand with your not reading or learning kick.