You cannot possibly disprove a) altering molecules for sake of exclusivity eg fluorinated progesterone,androgen,and corticoid species).b)speeding through tests to get drugs on market endangering public eg.thalidomide and c) endangering the public with altered molecules (eg celebrex,ritalin)

Here mr sarkeizen http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/fenfluramine/phentermine direct evidence of pressure to alter molecules for profit at our safety expense.amphetaminederivative fenfluramine was totaly banned,then lawsuited,then rapidly re-arranged into dexfenfluramine.dexfenfluramine is compelled to have a warning in europe but not in the states

Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 02:11:53 AM
How can I be the weakest arguer that you ever met when YOU cannot possibly DISPROVE me mr sarkeizen.

Because I'm arguing that you don't know what you're talking about.  Which at this point seems to be true as you can't even name two actual drugs where small changes are made just to preserve patents.  I think we can agree if you don't know what you're talking about then the idea that you need to be disproven is pretty laughable.   Right?

Wrong.wikipedia declares that fenfluramine was evil then banned then altered then warned about

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 11, 2014, 09:27:49 AM
Which at this point seems to be true as you can't even name two actual drugs where small changes are made just to preserve patents. 

Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 09:30:21 AM
Wrong.wikipedia declares that fenfluramine was evil then banned then altered then warned about

Except that doesn't say anything about preserving patents.  So my statement isn't wrong.

Does the fact that you are now arguing "changed to be safer" mean I've stopped your argument about changing for no other reason but to preserve a patent?  Because clearly changing something to make it safer is clearly not identical to preserving a patent.