Cancer and the drug companies

[husaberg]

And a decrease in the market for a commodity can easily be achieved by a change in marketing strategy.

Only specialist vaccines are not a commodity at all
Also if they were a drop in production capacity the the real world would equal an increase in the price for said commodity.
this is until other suppliers see there is demand and made up the production shortfall.
That how commodities work, they are a primary producer product, where the market price fluctuates for due to the laws of supply and demand.

With that one post above you have shown yourself to have no understanding at all. Maybe you should do such actual research, because even yokel would be embarrassed over that post.

[Katman]

With that one post above you have shown yourself to have no understanding at all. Maybe you should do such actual research, because even yokel would be embarrassed over that post.

If a company wanted to supercede a product with a new version they could easily bring about a downturn in demand for the original product simply by changing their marketing strategy.

Once again, it's not rocket surgery - it's simply Market Manipulation 101.

[husaberg]

If a company wanted to supersede a product with a new version they could easily bring about a downturn in demand for the original product simply by changing their marketing strategy.

Once again, it's not rocket surgery.

But this is a company that exited a part of what you incorrectly deemed to be a "Commodity market" Thus the demand (if it actually existed, which it clearly does not) would be made up by all the other commodity producers.
Lets just say you are definitely not a doctor or a rocket scientist for not being able to figure it out.

Here is a hint, it clearly isn't a commodity product and there clearly isn't clearly a huge demand.....
Nor is it a controlled market. Its a free market with very strong competition.
If there was actual real demand and if it was profitable, it would be produced by another party that could make huge profits from what would appear to be a captive market.

[Katman]

Lol, that reason you've given for editing your post has to be the greatest display of ironing ever seen.

[TheDemonLord]

I wonder if Merck decided to cease production of the three separate vaccines in favour of the 3 in 1 shot simply because it increased their profits.

And your point is?

In order for you to have a point - you have to prove that the 3 in 1 shot has an actual negative side effect that the individual vaccines don't.

[Katman]

And your point is?

In order for you to have a point - you have to prove that the 3 in 1 shot has an actual negative side effect that the individual vaccines don't.

Well it's not an uncommon belief that there would probably be less risk involved by introducing three pathogens into your child's body spread out over three years rather than all at once.

If Merck decided to combine them into one shot simply because it increased their profits it would just be another indicator of the moral corruption endemic in the pharmaceutical industry.

[husaberg]

Lol, that reason you've given for editing your post has to be the greatest display of ironing ever seen.

Only thing is, I never changed my post you did.

[Katman]

Only thing is, I never changed my post you did.

That's the funny thing though, most of the people here probably miss half the shit that comes out of your gob because they don't think to keep going back and seeing how your posts can suddenly morph from two sentences into a five paragraph, eight copy and pastes, and twelve multiquotes post.

[husaberg]

Well it's not an uncommon belief that there would probably be less risk involved by introducing three pathogens into your child's body spread out over three years rather than all at once.

If Merck decided to combine them into one shot simply because it increased their profits it would just be another indicator of the moral corruption endemic in the pharmaceutical industry.

Only thing is, selling three separate vaccines rather than one, would likely be better for business profitability.
You might find there is a lot more demand for a combined vaccines, which is why they produce them, as it is infinitely more convenient for end user and people who administer and run the vaccination programmes.
But don't let yourself get bogged down with logic.
Also Merck along with any other private company is entitled to do what ever they wish in regards to their packaging or product mix, even if its contrary to your views.

[TheDemonLord]

Well it's not an uncommon belief that there would probably be less risk involved by introducing three pathogens into your child's body spread out over three years rather than all at once.

Belief and Probably. These are the words of someone arguing on FAITH, Not Scientific Evidence. Again, you have no actual evidence for your position.

If Merck decided to combine them into one shot simply because it increased their profits it would just be another indicator of the moral corruption endemic in the pharmaceutical industry.

If there was an actual downside, then sure, you could claim that. If it was a case where there was a measurable increase in risk, but this was justified by the increase profits being less then the anticipated cost in any negative consequences (the old automotive recall paradox) then sure, you could also claim that.

but there isn't, so claiming Moral Corruption when it is just good business is a bunch of hot air.

[Katman]

but there isn't.....

Only because you don't believe there is.

[husaberg]

That's the funny thing though, most of the people here probably miss half the shit that comes out of your gob because they don't think to keep going back and seeing how your posts can suddenly morph from two sentences into a five paragraph, eight copy and pastes, and twelve multiquotes post.

I am pretty sure most people on KB know what your agenda is. They also know pretty much all of it is illogical twaddle, gleaned from conspiracy sites with no basis in facts.
Adding links and quotes that highlight your hypocrisy, normally requires an edit, unless you expect someone to have three of four tabs open at all times.
What you do though, is change whole themes of posts and generally ignore questions, mainly because you are an imbecilic troll.

Only because you don't believe there is.

More religious faith rhetoric.............

[TheDemonLord]

Only because you don't believe there is.

You are the one saying you Believe something and it's Probably true...

You wouldn't need to Believe if you had Evidence.

If you had Evidence it wouldn't probably be true.

I believe nothing and review the evidence.

Have you got any evidence that the 3 separate vaccines have less harmful side effects then the 1 Vaccine?

[Katman]

And in the same way that the war industry seeks to protect it's obscene profits through the continual pursuit of war, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the pharmaceutical industry seeks to protect it's obscene profits by maintaining the population at a certain level of unwellness/addiction.

If everyone suddenly became healthy it wouldn't bode well for the prescription drug pushers, would it?

[husaberg]

You are the one saying you Believe something and it's Probably true...

You wouldn't need to Believe if you had Evidence.

If you had Evidence it wouldn't probably be true.

I believe nothing and review the evidence.

Have you got any evidence that the 3 separate vaccines have less harmful side effects then the 1 Vaccine?

Watch him change the subject and go off on a new tangent.....