Fenfluramine was banned then altered to preserve patent rights.at expense of public safety mr sarkeizen.the revised molecule contains a massive warning on its label in europe.this is making a molecule safer? Safer with a neon warning? This supports my argument to a T.this is classic

Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 01:22:06 PM
Fenfluramine was banned then altered to preserve patent rights.at expense of public safety mr sarkeizen.the revised molecule contains a massive warning on its label in europe.this is making a molecule safer? Safer with a neon warning? This supports my argument to a T.this is classic

Again, is this your new argument?  You no longer can advance your "just to keep patents" argument.  So your new made up argument is: "Changed just to be safer". If that's not your argument then you need to state it clearly.

If they are willing to shove an evil relative of an evil molecule through the patent office and into the streets at lightning speed what will they do when they are not in the spotlight mr sarkeizen.you wanted two examples so let's look at fenfluramine's partner,,altered amphetamine relative phentermine.chek out phentermine on this list of 5 drugs available in the u.s. but banned in other countries due to toxicity http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headline/drugs-medications-fda-banned/2014/05/14/id/571315/

Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 01:46:34 PM
If they are willing to shove an

Again.  What is your argument?  "Changed with the hope to make it safer" or "Changed with one and only one thing in mind: Preserving a patent" or what?   Once you decide what your argument is.  I'll start paying attention to what you are saying.  Until then I think your inability to state your position clearly is sufficient evidence to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

Pressure to preserve or possess exclusivity at expense of public safety via altering molecules mr sarkeizen.this is my argument,this happens,alot