udx

I disagree with the part about that pharmaceuticals shouldn't charge high prices to help the good society. Sure, it would be nice that they charge less, but like any other business, at the end of the day, it is to make money. Pharmaceuticals are technology based, where a lot of money is put into R&D, clinical trials taking up to several years before it ever hits the market. The patent to make the drug is only good for a decade or so before it becomes generic and other companies could produce them. If they do not charge high prices to recuperate the costs in development, this would no longer be a profitable business, then who would do it? Would you rather those drugs don't exist at all so all are equal, or that they exist but cost a lot? I think many people have trouble separating the difference between business and charity. If you really want to be charitable, why don't you buy drugs or foot part of the bill for someone who can't afford it, someone's got to foot the bill.

This is very misleading.. You say the % of all death occur in this activity, that could also imply that the total proportion of people involve in the activity are few. For example, someone could do something totally unique that result in death, and number of death compare to total deaths would be negligible, but it doesn't mean it is any safer than things with higher death percentage relative to total. The percentage of death result from an activity is not a valid way to judge the safety of it. Death number should be calculated as a percentage to the number of participants in the activity to calculate risk. Oh, by the way, have you heard the phrase that statisticians are lairs?

The fastest way to return to dust.

Isn't that very old 'news'?

that is understandable

So that is where my tax money goes to.

The "Come Celebrate With Us" words is hard to see. Outline of the words are too light.