No I said that companies are under pressure,to alter molecules,to get patents on drugs that they do and do not have patents on.I also added that they may not be fully testing these altered drugs for complete safety under regulation standards

My argument can easily extend to non-related molecules doing the exact same thing eg ssri's since it falls into the rush-to-patent-anything-that-works category

Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:48:05 PM
companies are under pressure,to alter molecules,to get patents on drugs

However that's not what is being discussed.  This is:

Quote
look how the pharmaceutical companies re-arrange a molecule or two every 6months on new drugs

This is the only statement that's under contention.  This would be obvious to even someone as silly as yourself since I asked for examples of the drugs where a molecule (or two has been changed) which you still haven't supplied.

Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
My argument can easily extend to non-related molecules doing the exact same thing eg ssri's

You can change your argument to anything you want but you actually have to state it in a way that can actually be discussed.  So if you are saying some DRUGS have some characteristic X then it's reasonable to expect YOU to provide examples of DRUGS with characteristic X.  If you can't or refuse then then you really don't have much of an argument.

Again it's pretty amazing how one simple and straightforward question and I have you trying to twist and turn and change your argument.  You are quite possibly the weakest opponent I've ever met.

Quote from: sarkeizen
...
You are quite possibly the weakest opponent I've ever met.

Poker according to Maverick.  Or Kenny Rogers.

How can I be the weakest arguer that you ever met when YOU cannot possibly DISPROVE me mr sarkeizen.