Following the approval of Toripalimab by the Food and Drug Administration, two more Chinese-made cancer drugs have received approval for distribution in the US.
In China, the cost of a single-dose vial of Toripalimab is around 2,000 yuan (US$280), according to Chinese cancer informational websites. The cost of a single-dose vial in the US will wholesale for US$8,892.03, Coherus wrote in a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday. The American price is more than 31 times the price of the same drug marketed in China.
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
That is not true at all. Posting content from disreputable sources encourages the uninformed to see the source as reliable when it is not. Posting these stories from propaganda sources is always harmful. There is no excuse for it when you could have simply taken the time to find a legitimate source for it. If none is found, then it would have been more wise to not post it at all.
You were quick to become offended when the source you posted was called out for its weakness. Instead of being defensive and attacking the commenter who questioned the legitimacy of the source, just own up to the fact that you should have chosen a better source to begin with.
Maybe if the US would start doing something to combat emissions instead of literally increasing the amount of electricity they generate from fossil fuel sources, I can post some pro-US pieces too. US primary energy production from fossil fuels has increased by more than 40% since 2010. The climate is the single biggest issue faced by the world today and the US is more concerned with protecting the profits of billionaire O&G executives than doing anything about it.
Maybe discredit the source, then? The commenter did no work to demonstrate that the statements claimed in the article were illegitimate. It should be trivial, given that the article (and myself) cites an SEC report.
The only person who seems offended in this post is you. Find an alternate source, or don’t, but when your only source is an unreliable one, don’t be upset when people don’t take it seriously.
(None of what I said changes regardless of whether or not your article is 100% factual.)
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
That’s not a reference to source, that’s just words that claim these things happened. The only references to that price point seem to be from this article or articles that reference this article.
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
I did the opposite of ignoring them. I read through and tried to figure out by the sources whether they’re lying.
Blindly trusting a clearly biased source as you do is way more dangerous. Blindly defending them is worse. But perhaps this data does exist and I just suck at finding it.
It’s an SEC filing. I found the filing. It’s pretty trivial to do so. They gave you all the information needed: who filed it, when they filed it, where they filed it, and the data point they found from the document.
SCMP isn’t really in the business of making up SEC filings from thin air.
They cite their sources:
Ignoring a source because you disagree with their political position rather than the facts being presented is, frankly, dangerous.
That is not true at all. Posting content from disreputable sources encourages the uninformed to see the source as reliable when it is not. Posting these stories from propaganda sources is always harmful. There is no excuse for it when you could have simply taken the time to find a legitimate source for it. If none is found, then it would have been more wise to not post it at all.
You were quick to become offended when the source you posted was called out for its weakness. Instead of being defensive and attacking the commenter who questioned the legitimacy of the source, just own up to the fact that you should have chosen a better source to begin with.
3 of OPs 4 posts are pro-china pieces. Wonder if he can tell us what happened in Tiananmen Square in April 1989
Maybe if the US would start doing something to combat emissions instead of literally increasing the amount of electricity they generate from fossil fuel sources, I can post some pro-US pieces too. US primary energy production from fossil fuels has increased by more than 40% since 2010. The climate is the single biggest issue faced by the world today and the US is more concerned with protecting the profits of billionaire O&G executives than doing anything about it.
Ah there it is
So, what DID happen in Tiananmen Square in April-June 1989?
Maybe discredit the source, then? The commenter did no work to demonstrate that the statements claimed in the article were illegitimate. It should be trivial, given that the article (and myself) cites an SEC report.
I cited the claim in the article. It’s an entirely fact-based claim. Why are you so offended by facts?
The only person who seems offended in this post is you. Find an alternate source, or don’t, but when your only source is an unreliable one, don’t be upset when people don’t take it seriously.
(None of what I said changes regardless of whether or not your article is 100% factual.)
Some people only trust sources they agree with.
A factual story is unreliable because you don’t like it?
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
Last I checked, there’s no SEC filing indicating that I have sex with goats. The evidence is literally public.
Now a link to THAT would be exactly what people are asking for.
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
Their source is literally public information. Is an SEC report somehow unreliable, too?
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
An SEC filing is an unreliable source?
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
Are you questioning the validity of the facts themselves? The basic math used to drive the conclusion?
That’s not a reference to source, that’s just words that claim these things happened. The only references to that price point seem to be from this article or articles that reference this article.
I did the opposite of ignoring them. I read through and tried to figure out by the sources whether they’re lying.
Blindly trusting a clearly biased source as you do is way more dangerous. Blindly defending them is worse. But perhaps this data does exist and I just suck at finding it.
It’s an SEC filing. I found the filing. It’s pretty trivial to do so. They gave you all the information needed: who filed it, when they filed it, where they filed it, and the data point they found from the document.
SCMP isn’t really in the business of making up SEC filings from thin air.
It’s SCMP, not the Times of Israel.
Yet you fail to link to it. Curious, or just some sort of a flex?
If you found the filing, I fully admit that you are a better googler than I am. Happy?
Uhh, yeah. You seemed to have driven on a mine there, comrade. Times of Israel is ranked as more trustworthy than SCMP.
Look at the top level comments on this post JFC
SCMP is consistently factual in their reporting. The Times of Israel consistently reports IDF conjecture as fact.