In Common with the Common

There’s not often a meeting of minds between the very conservative Conservatives of the Conservative Party and the common persons in the UK.  Traditionally and mutually whenever the two classes of person have become aware of the other they have despised and shunned one another.

For the most part the ultra Conservative class of The Party were privately educated at Boarding Schools to which they had been packed off by their parents at an age of six or seven and at which they learned many extra-curricular things which acted upon them so as in general to twist their minds.

These schools are and always have been expensive and the preserve only of the better off and their children.  There is a lot of comic material in circulation in Britain about the products, the outcomes from these schools, when pupils leave to enter Oxbridge or one of the better sorts of University, whereabouts their formal education is to be completed.  The child who is interned in such a school at six years old comes out the other end of his stay a lad or girl of 17 or 18 who is equipped with a case-hardened personality and a catalogue of strictly-observed and rigid views on British history and on the roles they will play in it.

For this set of undergraduates history is the story of what great men (not usually women) have done in the past.  This set of persons tends to see history as a series of character and personality-based events; and the role of what one might call ‘the Spirit of the Age’ in history is relegated for them far down the line; and such a spirit is seen by them as a factor which was moulded wholly by the great men of the times.  It is thus these elite persons’ roles to carry on that tradition and to become prominent in society, and so make their marks.  So that people yet to come will refer to them as the history makers.

This outlook of a personality and character-based world naturally engenders between them intense competition and this in turn generates great antipathies and grudges and much bickering and in-fighting.  It is this set of traits which characterises this portion of British society more than anything else. It is nowhere else employed by any other UK social group to advance their ambitions for their lives.

Only the laws of libel and the formal standards this set professes in their roles in public life prevents them from displaying their situation to society’s lower orders, of an all out war going on between them.  This privacy is in the London Clubs and fine town houses; behind closed doors whereabouts this war rumbles on; is arranged so as to happen in private so as to disallow the greater public any view of or access to their civil strifes. This then is the reason for their formal standards of behaviour in public life; so that the real struggles for power, alliance, and revenge can go on in camera and without the common persons being privy to their antics.

This private war one would think might be ideologically based or might even be a series of educated men’s debates on what course of action or what approach might be best, concerning burning issues. One would be wrong utterly. Because these infightings are all ad hominem battles and this upper crust takes up cudgels against its own so as to make personal attacks on one another, and to settle scores and to outmanoeuvre – whilst scratching friends’ backs they slit their enemies’ throats.  Ideas based discussions and debates come far down the pecking order of these crew.  It is for them all about personalities and character.

This means that although they may be some of the more highly educated persons in the nation, their upbringing, left largely to form masters and to prefects and head boys to take care of, has left them seething with ambition to make a mark and with a ruthlessness and antagonism strong enough to ensure they will do every deed and use any pretext to advance themselves.

Now amongst the least well-educated persons in the UK are the vast numbers of persons almost predestined to grow up and remain in the lower social classes into which they were born. Since they are not familiar with abstract ideas, nor have they been taught of the importance of abstract ideas; nor of debate and argument (as opposed to quarrels); they also treat life as a wholly personality-based and character-driven phenomenon.  Their entertainment includes a lot of TV soap; which is little more than a series of neighbours falling out with and committing misdemeanours upon one another; of raised voices and blood pressure and a sort of post-modern mayhem melodrama.

These TV soaps not only reflect common life they also direct it, so that all the more sense of authenticity of life may be felt by and imagined had by the common viewer of them.  Thus they are an integrated part of the consumer economy which above all and for its self-perpetuation absorbs, creates and feeds demand unnecessarily amongst a pool of buyers whom consumerist sellers groom and use as objects for persuasion by use of their propagandas.

And so it is that, the least-educated among us, also like to antagonise and to overthrow or to get the better of others who are their foes and rivals – and often; to do so merely for the sake of it. These persons also form alliances and do favours and receive preference through their networks and so live their lives as personality and character-based histories.  Only there is no standard of public behaviour for this common class of person; unlike for the more extreme Conservatives, whose dirty-linen, unlike the common persons’, is rarely seen displayed in public.

But in common the two classes do have the ad hominem attack; which both see as their chief weapon of choice and effectiveness.

This common ground of ad hominem infighting between top and bottom social classes in UK has been a boon to those upper crust persons in UK, who wish for Britain to leave the European Union; and there are many of them, perhaps most of their class?

Their class has chosen almost constantly and exclusively to use this ad hominem approach of theirs, which normally they harbour solely in private; and to put it in the public space so as to attempt to undermine the abstract arguments made by speakers from the side who wishes to remain in Europe; thus aiming to undermine the speakers’ credence, authority, and the character of their persons.

The President of the USA Barak Obama was treated this way by the Conservative Party and its supporters who wish to leave Europe.  He was called, with an implicit aim to query him, ‘part Kenyan’; he had, it was claimed, no right to speak on the issue; he was called ‘a lame-duck President’ who was ‘doing a favour for his old friend’ the British Prime Minister.  Many, many others have spoken to stay in Europe and have found themselves likewise on the other end of defamatory and pugnacious personal remarks bordering upon abusive.

Does the upper crust of Conservatives know; has it they figured out that; the lower classes of society think and see life through the same prism as it does?  Are these toffs waging a campaign which aims to mobilise and energise the lesser persons in the nation to go out and vote this upper crust into the positions of greater control and power which they lust after and which is their truest self-interested motivation for wanting UK to leave Europe?  Is this class of toffs strategic enough to have thought this out?  They would certainly use such a campaign had they have thought of it.

This lower class of persons here rarely listens to other than wall to wall music radio stations and reads newspapers which are more like kid’s comics. TV news and current affairs is not their bag.  But the sensationalism of some toffs throwing abuse and insults at famous people is news for them nonetheless – they like a bit of public argy-bargy – and their comic books will carry with relish a distorted news reportage of this kind of thing.

And so, if UK does leave the EU in June, it may well be because of a strange-bedfellows alliance made between the top and bottom social classes here which has brought out enough people to sway things their way.

Of course the toffs will simply ditch the lower class alliance straightaway. Its utility is done.  The toffs will take their prizes and walk off with them. None of us will get a share or even see them. The plebs, as they see and despise them, will have been suckered.  All history is the history of class war.

Untidied Nations

The big looming question mark over the UK and less so over the EU, is whether the British public will agree to ritual suicide and vote themselves out of the European Union in June.

Without doubt the elephant in the room; skeleton in the cupboard, and  ghost under the bed is EU economic migration and migrants come to Britain.  This issue of EU economic migrants coming to Britain (or not) might as well be the question on the EU stay or exit referendum ballot paper; because this is not a referendum about national sovereignty or about taking back ‘our’ own steering wheel and foot pedals from Brussels.

These issues are proxy euphemisms used by the warring sides here for stating The Big Issue without actually naming it.  And any taint of racism entering into the immigration issue, and into the ordinary joe-in-the-street’s take on the hordes coming from Europe to work here; such a thought is unthinkable – or at least unsayable without the sayer volunteering her/his public career to the garbage truck.

Once again it is all about ‘seems’; about using ‘coded’ words to express concerns and ideas in public life. Should the UK citizenry vote itself out of Europe then it will have done so overwhelmingly because a majority of those who actually vote on the day wants to stem the flow, the flood, of economic migration coming to Britain from that place.

In private and off the record everyone is able to admit to this less-than-laudable prime motivation behind this awfully big fuss.

But let’s be clear; the migrants coming to the UK are not coming and settling in the places in Britain which house and cater for the better-off section of the population here.  Even so, many of these better-off will vote for an exit, and so for an end to the migrants coming here. It is a strange sociological phenomenon that indiscriminate prejudice against ethnic, racial, economic, and other groups of persons is found statistically to be very often prevalent in areas of the country in which few if any of the people dwelling there actually witness these ethnicities, races, etc dwelling in or even visiting their local areas.

It is these areas who consider themselves British; are patriots; and support the true-blue establishment.  This attitude holds pretty much regardless of social class; although the better-off are always the opinion-forming influences in their various localities.  Thus it is that one will find a farm labourer, or a local shopkeeper airing intentions to vote for an exit from Europe by UK in June.

The economic migrants of all kinds and all nations who arrive on UK shores are generally drawn to live among and mix with the less better-off UK citizens. Towns and cities around the nation, in their poorer districts, become home to these newcomers. It is here where if it is happening significantly at all, that schools and health services are being put under an additional pressure – I really do feel that these claims of pressures on social services are in large part false-flag red herrings; the sort of general propaganda which lodges in the minds and hearts of the less educated lower social classes of the less better-off amongst us here.

You might find my views too sceptical?  This is a very dirty fight going on in the nation about our future in Europe; and there has been decades of time in which animosities on all sides have built up, and now the time has come for gloves to come off and the ordure to be slung heartily and with a vengeance.  The dinner-party classes are adamant about hauling us out of the EU club.

Now for some surmises which I believe are probabilities and they are about migration and the migrant hordes a-coming over here and upon us.

The native UK population is age imbalanced; and has been and shall continue to be for some decades. There are more persons of sixty plus years alive now in UK than the number of the rest of the population combined. Ironically, a great majority portion of the kamikaze squad, who wants us out and will vote for out and maybe get their way, will almost certainly be the victims of the consequences of any exit of Britain from Europe.

Many of these sixty plus citizens are retired and so non-contributory to the work done in the British economy.  These same sixty plus persons are the social group most in need of health services; of elderly and disabled persons’ care and services; of free transport and various other government organised publicly funded welfare benefits.  These benefits are paid for out of taxation of various kinds; much of this taxation coming in as income tax on employed, and mostly hale and healthy, persons’ earnings.

In other words we in UK have a shortage of young persons in the population.  Most especially we project – and the projection is largely undisputed – that we do not and shall continue not to have sufficient young persons at work and earning money and paying taxes, so as to keep the funding of public welfare services in the black.

These economic migrants coming here; they are young; they bring or start young families here; thus they mean to settle and make a fist of their new lives and homeland.  And what is it the British population and economy needs most? Young healthy employed persons. Can you do the math?

But they take our children’s places in our schools, bleat the whinging exiters.  ‘Our’ schools have been reduced in number by policy for some decades now because of the imbalance of the age of our population. There have been few children to educate.  Short-sightedly, instead of considering that we shall need young children to keep our oldies in mittens and hot water bottles, our leaders have not only closed down school buildings, but have largely destroyed them, demolished them, and maybe have sold off the land for readies to fund the needs of our increasing numbers of oldies with. What about that. There’s social policy for you. Don’t you wish you lived in a capitalist liberal democracy?

The young adults coming here from abroad are mostly coming from EU nations like Poland and the Eastern European Balkans and ex-Soviet satellites.  Coming here for them means – one hopes – a better chance in life.  They are the more endeavouring souls amongst their countrymen and women, and of course some are chancers, adventurers, rogues fleeing trouble or justice back home. These types tend to tar the whole batch of migrants with ordure when the British press and media get their hands on any horror stories involving the rogues. Here is my personal experience.

People are coming to my home city in large numbers from Europe and many are settling, starting families and even opening businesses – shops and tradesmen’s services often.  The families are well-dressed, clean, and seem more ‘together’ than many British guys around my locality.  I have not yet been or felt ostracised or threatened or passed-over by, or in the stead of any one of them or in any circumstances surrounding the people I meet who are immigrants.  An elderly guy with a thick Polish accent was the only person to stop and help me load our car with a heavy piece of furniture in the main street late last year.  No-one else from among swarms of passers-by, mostly of ‘us’, volunteered me help. The guy smiled said goodbye and ambled away – nothing else than a very pleasant experience.

We have here in UK a very mixed bag of native citizens. People in my own lifetime have come from Uganda, West Indies, Tristan da Cunah, India, Pakistan, China, Myanmar, Australia, Kenya, South Africa, and many other places (in lesser numbers).  Most of these nationals have children and grandchildren who are British. Not naturalised but native British.  They are and feel and behave British.  They are integrated and are socially accepting and accepted. It has taken time and some very rough rides to get here but on the whole we are tolerant and inclusive and this goes for all of us of any descent or ancestry.

The phenomenon of the descendants of such earlier migrants and migrations to the UK actually being opposed to the migrations and migrants coming in and occurring now is apparent. In some respects, and I say this advisedly and with some regret, it is a parallel to the parable Jesus tells of an Unjust Steward, who begs and receives forgiveness for a huge debt he owes his master; and them goes straightaway and throws into jail a servant of his own after that servant had been unable to clear to the Steward a trifling debt owed by him.

In public life here in UK we don’t speak at all about Jesus. Jesus, like the migration issue is an elephant in the public space. Our schools teach ‘consideration’ and ‘manners’ ‘being cheerful’ and ‘working positively’ but they shy away like it was a contagion, from teaching Jesus and The New Testament (or Old). Partly it is a sensitivity thing – that we are so much a mixed bag of peoples that teaching Jesus is commonly feared to be teaching one-sidedly.  More to the point is that schools duck the incumbency of and issues involved in an engaged and devotional religious education of any kind per se.

Again advisedly I say perhaps the big section of the teaching profession who opt to duck this incumbent duty are similar persons to those whom Jesus told he too would be embarrassed to own them as his likewise when comes The judgement?  This sounds too harsh. And I recant of it; of The Judgement part, I think.  But the embracement, the opting into a committal of personal passion and of oneself and one’s heart to bringing up boys and girls to feel charitable and generous to and for others would be a great addition to our society. Not just from teachers; in social situations in general and from the persons in these who find themselves incumbent to correctly do so.

In such a nurture of charitableness and goodwill might rest our collective salvations here in UK. The hordes of economic migrants coming from the EU might be better welcomed by us; and not for their undoubted utility and benefits they bring to us; but as mere other guys and gals and their kids hoping and trying to make a life for themselves.

We might even prise open our hearts wide enough then to welcome at least some of the hapless left to endure stagnant lives on Turkish and Macedonian borders?  But that might be blue-sky thinking?

A Critique on Bias in a Normative Commercial Press Release

The words indented and in itallics comprise The Critque – of the words Remaining which comprise the press release

Samsung brings in the lawyers for biosimilars push


Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd, which aims to become a force in the fledgling biosimilar drugs industry, has filed a lawsuit against the originator of the world’s best-selling drug, to stop it blocking the launch of its own version.

The pronouns used here (it, its) are confusing. Who is stopping whom from launching?  ‘Fledgling industry’ versus ‘world’s best-selling’ – a twisted would-be David and Goliath story perhaps?.

The unit of South Korea’s Samsung Group [SAGR.UL], along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen (BIIB.O), filed suit in Britain on March 24 against AbbVie Inc (ABBV.N), maker of rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, which generated sales of $14 billion (9.85 billion pounds) last year.

It’s not clear whether Humira generated the money or AbbVie Inc. I am assuming the claim refers to the drug not to the company. The world’s best selling drug generated sale s of $14billion last year. See the figures in the following paragraphs which are projected as their wishlist targets by Samsung, its subsidiaries and competitors in the wider bio drug similars marketplace. These sums are much huger than $14 billion

It is the company’s first suit against a drug originator.

The first suit – and therefore an advance – possibly a new way found to make attempts to muscle in, and to muscle others out The term ‘drug originator’ here used is an emotionally neutral term, a sanitised term, unlike a term such as ‘drug patentee’ or ‘drug owner’ or ‘drug creator’ all of which imply more strongly an ownership of a property. ‘Originator’ on the other hand tends to exclude, or to at least dampen down in its use, any idea of exclusive possession of property rights.

Interest in biosimilars – lower-cost copies of complex biotech drugs – has soared in recent years as copies of some of the world’s best-selling prescription medicines have hit the market.

‘Interest in’ might be a euphemism for muscling in and muscling others out so as to make a land grab; one which at present is within the law to attempt, and so to aim to poach business and revenues from other companies? ‘Lower-cost copies’ is a term which also neutralises any hint of an attempted rip-off.  As for ‘complex bio drugs’ – does the word ‘complex’ add anything other than to fabricate a mystique surrounding the science of bio drugs?  They must be good!

Unlike generic versions of simple chemical medicines, biotech drugs are made from living cells, so it is impossible to manufacture exact copies.

A fallacy: The statement concluding impossibility just does not follow from the premises. The statement seems to be a backdoor and bogus justification for the lawfulness of making biosimilar drugs and trading in them. How exact a copy of any tablet of an ordinary drug is another tablet of the same drug? It has the same chemical composition but uses different matter than does any other tablet of the same drug. Logically it has to be so.  And so biosimilars, if they are ‘different’ will have to be different in some other ways than being not exact copies of their parent drugs, and to be different in another way than in the way of ‘non-exact copies’ as described here.  Yet also a drug which claims itself to be a copy of another drug, it seems, would yet have to contain effectual ingredients of the same kind and same application – and working in the same way so as to get the same effects –  as the drug it is being claimed to be an inexact copy of?  Thus it has to be either a copy or else it is not. It may have constituents which differ as variations from the drug it is modelled on as it being an inexact copy – but surely the active ingredients in it have to be of the same kind and application and so give the same results, for it to be able to be called a copy of any sort?. And besides, this all is a red herring. The issue in question is the attempt at extension of a term, of the expiry date, of a patent.  Should the drug creator who is also the patent holder win in a law suit; it seems that Samsung would not be able to market its bio similar drug at issue. Period   

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics says biosimilars could save healthcare systems in the United States and Europe’s top five markets as much as 98 billion euros (78.49 billion pounds) by 2020.

Who is this IMS? Does any reader bother to look it up? Does it carry any authority besides a grandiose name?  True, that biosimilar drug copies might save their users and buyers some money; than had they bought the patentee’s variant instead – probably – but this is not the central issue – which is not stated here. The central issue is Samsung’s aiming to make profits by way of undercutting, pricewise and perhaps also attempting to undermine businesswise, the original developers of a drug.  The article implies that drug firms are copying patented bio drugs in such a way which is able to avoid patent law restrictions. See previous paragraph. It is thus a form of competition – whether fair or not – who can say? 

The figure of 98 billion euros to be saved by public healthcare systems, seems to be presented here so as to engage readers who might be, or become, or think they might become, public consumers of the biosimilar drugs and so to grab their interest – to get them onside and hook into their personal concerns, hopes and empathies?

The South Korean conglomerate is hoping for big things from the unit – including a revenue target of 1 trillion won ($872 million) by 2020 – amid sagging profits at its electronics business, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS), the world’s biggest maker of smartphones and televisions.

What ‘unit’? Samsung has great expectations of ‘big things’ by 2020 – of generating in its business 1 trillion won (Korean currency unit) = US$872 million

Success in the endeavour is seen as key for de facto Samsung Group leader Jay Y. Lee, 47, to prove himself as steward of the family-run smartphones-to-insurance empire. His father, group patriarch Lee Kun-hee, has been hospitalised since a 2014 heart attack.

A ‘human interest’ clause, centring upon a son’s bid to prove himself to be as capable as his ailing father was.


The composition patent for Humira loses its exclusivity in the United States in December 2016, and in Europe in October 2018, but Illinois-based AbbVie, which earned 61 percent of its 2015 net revenue from Humira, has been filing new patents in a bid to push back sales of biosimilars.

AbbVie is cast as villain. It is presented as if having been seeking to manipulate the patents systems so as for it to retain exclusive right to its Humira drug for longer than is normally permitted in law. It is also hinted at that the firm AbbVie’s business is unbalanced financially (61% of its income comes from one drug it owns) and so dependant too far on a single product – due to expire patent soon – Another hint to its investors perhaps?

In addition to Samsung Bioepis and Biogen, more than a dozen firms have challenged AbbVie’s strategy through patent authorities or the courts.

More than 12 interested (biosimilar drug?) firms have combined to take AbbVie to court and so challenge its strategy of trying to prolong its patent term in Humira.  They perhaps see a failing alpha giant and like wolves might be lining up to destroy the alpha and to fight out amongst themselves thereafter who might become the next market leader?

“We believe that AbbVie has been attempting to obstruct market entry of competing products by applying for a large number of overlapping patents around Humira, which could affect patient access to affordable medication,” Samsung Bioepis told Reuters.

This seems to be a deliberate and detestable obfuscation. AbbVie it is said is believed to have ‘been attempting to obstruct market entry of competing products’. In fact the more believable version is that perhaps AbbVie has been attempting to obstruct market entry of the combined dozen plus companies’ (biosimilar drug makers’?) competing products? The justification for this combination of firms pressing their law suits is that if AbbVie were to succeed in its strategy to prolong its patent term, this ‘could affect patient access to affordable medication’.  Does any clear-thinking person believe this is the prime motivation for the dozen plus companies to have chosen to oppose AbbVie in law?  Is it not perhaps rather that the firms placing the lawsuit against AbbVie are doing so, so that they can enter the marketplace with their own (bio similar’ drug?) products? And does the combination want primarily to help the ill persons who need and who might take the drug – or is it not instead all smoke and mirrors and about making money and clawing a ways to the top of the sector?

“We believe competition should take place in the market, and not through such misuse of the patent system,” it added.

This appears to be another justification and one which is probably hypocritical.  Would any clear thinking person impute uprightness to any of the dozen plus companies who in combination are bringing the suit on such grounds as they claim here? Would any clear thinking person believe that these companies themselves would not act in the exact same way and use the same strategy as AbbVie is using; were the tables turned on them?

AbbVie told Reuters it was aware of the lawsuit filed by Samsung Bioepis and Biogen.

“As we have said, we intend to defend our intellectual property,” it said.

It appears to be all about possession of property for AbbVie. Notice they are ‘defending’ their IP’, no mention of them trying to ‘extend the term of the IP’ or of any hint of doubt in them about the ethical appropriateness of their sense of their right to do so. They offer no succour to the enemy

Samsung Bioepis, which brought its first drug to market late last year, has a pipeline of 13 biosimilars, versions of existing drugs with similar efficacy at much lower prices, and is initially focussing on six of them to get out in front of the market

Samsung looks to be being cast more and more as the hero versus the villain AbbVie. It is said to be trying to ‘get out in front of the market’ – a go-getting and dynamic company – and remember the touching son/father story earlier. Samsung has in line 13 of these drugs called ‘biosimilars’ – a term that again neutralises any hint of proprietary impropriety concerning the drugs.  ‘Much lower prices’ appears again to be a hook used to draw in sympathy from public audiences who might use the drugs.

The Samsung Group has a track record of moving fast. Late to enter the smartphone market, Samsung Electronics quickly rose to become the industry leader. The group is also one of the world’s most active patent filers and has over the years tried to move beyond its image as a “fast follower”.

Samsung has a ‘track record of moving fast’ – this whole paragraph is presented as a casual aside – but its big statements lean towards inferring repeatedly that Samsung is the dynamic hero in this affair.  It is praised as having:

Risen to become the Industry-leader

A status as one of the world’s most active patent filers

Tried to move beyond its image

“The first drug to hit the market takes the most market share, so this is the right strategy to go with,” said Kang Yang-ku, analyst at HMC Investment & Securities.

An independent source again, this time from HMC Investment & Securities, is quoted here in another attempt which seems to aim at forming this article’s readers’ opinions favourably towards Samsung. Again who are HMC and what authority does this HMC company member hold to be able to speak categorically like this? Does any casual reader care to look them or him up?  An HMC analyst says, in effect, that Samsung’s strategy for it to become placed in pole position in the market is the correct one and is sound; and by saying this the independent source seems obliquely to be endorsing Samsung, and denoting it implicitly as being a progressive company

There are potentially rich pickings for early movers; more than 10 blockbuster biological drugs with combined yearly sales of $60 billion are on track to see their U.S. and European patents expire over the next four years, according to Allied Market Research.

Compare this $60 billion with the 14 billion made last year by AbbVie in selling the single world’s most popular bio-drug.  Another independent source here called, Allied Market Research, looks to be being used (again) to form the opinions of the readers of this webpage favourably towards the future of biosimilars. It mentions the ever-popular capitalist dream-myth of ‘rich-pickings for early movers’ – it looks like a glib and vacuous puff of wind; hype in fact – which announces that the chase is on with the heroic ’10 blockbuster biological drug’ firms – note ‘blockbuster’ – rooting for busting the blockage being proposed by the likes of AbbVie? These 10 ‘blockbusters’ might be pictured biting at the ankles of the patents due to expire and at those of the US and EU patentee companies who hold them?  The US cavalry of ‘early movers’ are on the trail of the baddies, the patentee bio drug firms – this cavalry are already doing good to and for the  general publics and at the same time hoping to turn in $60 billion whilst on their cavalry crusade. And in four years time, after the patents expire for the baddie bio drug guys, the goodie biosimilar drug guys who make and sell the bio-similars, will be cleaning up big-time, probably much more than a piffling $60 billion, and at the same time serving nobly a  previously much deprived and exploited general public with their cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Biosimilars are a source of consternation for investors in firms such as AbbVie, however, as the cheaper copies threaten to undercut profits for the original drug makers.

‘Cheaper copies threaten to undercut profits of original drug makers’ – again, no allusions to property rights is mentioned as belonging to the creators of the original bio drugs  – phrasing the description this way, and so bypassing saying something like ‘the present patent holders’ or ‘the creators of the drugs’ is convenient.  The copies, the biosimilar-drugs, ‘are a source of consternation for investors’ at firms like AbbVie, but not for the firm itself perhaps? But of course they are!  Investors are maybe being hinted at here to change horses and to back the biosimilar drug copy companies – the guys who are to make ‘rich pickings’ because they are the ‘early movers’?  The fact that to deprive companies who actually create drugs of research cash and resources by poaching investors from them; logically with doubt this means that the creation of new drugs by such drug creator firms becomes harder for them to do for them and their drugs slower to succeed. This is how the marketplace, free competition and the gung-ho anything-goes under the law, capitalism, as we have it operating right now almost globally, is emphatically not in the public interest. My arguments show how it allows firms to act in their own interests exclusively, even when great public harms might be at stake and resultant from firms’ freedoms to act in ways like these.

In December Bioepis began selling a biosimilar of Amgen’s (AMGN.O) arthritis drug Enbrel in South Korea, and the drug has since launched in some European markets including Germany and Britain early this year. The European Medicines Agency on Friday also recommended the Bioepis copy of another blockbuster drug Remicade for approval in Europe.

Bioepis and Biogen; both controlled by Samsung.  The split verb ‘recommended’ written in this paragraph – has been placed immediately before the words ‘the Bioepis copy of another blockbuster drug Remicade’ and so we only learn later in the sentence that the European Medicines Agency has merely ‘recommended approval’ for this copycat bio-drug. The phraseology looks to be tending to impress readers that the biosimilar drug in question itself has been recommended by EMA; and so it becomes easier for casual readers to mistake that this EMA recommendation is no more than merely approval for a drug to be marketed.

Samsung Bioepis is 91 percent-owned by Samsung Biologics, which manufactures biological drugs and is in turn mostly owned by Samsung C&T Corp (028260.KS) and Samsung Electronics.

Not wholly clearly expressed here who owns whom hereabove? Why is this explanation of ownership placed here at the very end as being as it were some ‘small print’ that is probably not going to be read with attention much.  Its content is an important clarifier of the paragraph written before it, and yet this content is placed disconnected from it by being made as a new paragraph. ‘Biogen’, ‘Bioepis’ two biosimilar-drug firms owned by or controlled by Samsung? – Is this really a David versus Goliath story?

Maybe we joe p[public are the Davids, the ordinary gals and guys; and the bio drug companies are maybe the Goliaths?

($1 = 1,144.1900 won) ($1 = 0.8839 euros)

(Editing by Tony Munroe and Will Waterman)

Truth Value

There were no words added by ET which might have elucidated what she was meaning when she tweeted this picture.  All interpretation that has been made of the picture then has been projected upon it from within the mindsets of the media commentator(s) upon it, no matter whom these commentator(s) might have been.

This is a necessary conclusion arrived at by the application of deductive logic, and so it is one that is hard to deny. The old adage applies here: ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ and also ‘to the pure all things are pure.’

Consider in the first place that an authoritative interpretation of the picture has been made by some persons other than ET; and that ET, on the basis of this authoritative interpretation, has been deemed the guilty party.

We can assume a consensus of some sort concerning this authoritative interpretation, since it has managed to derive enough support from persons in the right places to enable the resignation from government of ET.

Firstly, what is the basis of this authority which has established the leading interpretations of the photo; and who are the consensus which has arisen and has applied strong media pressure on ET?  Now remember that the same persons, those who subscribed to and in effect created these authoritative interpretations, are also those same persons who are the component individuals who form the consensus of authority which objected to the picture. The same persons created the authoritative interpretations who also formed the consensus which judged that the same interpretations were unacceptable. They were also the same persons who were instrumental in raising the consequent media storm which engulfed ET.

Do these persons then accept the propositions that:

  • They claim authoritatively to be reading accurately ET’s intentions in her Tweeting the photo
  • They understand the nature and ramifications of the critique of social attitudes which they are claiming to be appalled at seeing in ET’s Tweet.
  • They have formed a judgement on ET based on their acceptance of the truth value of these two propositions above

This critique of social attitudes appears to converge on the significance of a White Van; and of a public display of a St George’s flag from a modest terraced house; all as in the picture Tweeted.

One of the charges levelled by media at ET for her having Tweeted the picture has been that she was showing that she is ‘out of touch’ with the ‘values of common people’ in the UK.

How well does this widespread media accusation match the facts?

ET, to have been able to have intended by her Tweeting the picture, to show that she was stating by doing so a critique of social attitudes; and for her to have intended to have stated such a critique upon which the authoritative consensus has condemned her; these assumed abilities of ET’s, taken together, necessarily demonstrate that ET indeed was ‘in touch’ with the ‘values of the common people’, but maybe – maybe – unsympathetic to them?

I suggest here that the accusation of the media in its avid storm, that ET was out of touch, is as cryptic and as oblique a statement, as is any purported message that the same media has interpreted to have been conveyed in ET’s tweeted photo.

If this authoritative consensus of media interpretation is accurate in its understanding of the significance of ET’s tweeted picture, then the consensus’s claim that ET is ‘out of touch’ is not valid, so long as the interpretation of the consensus remains valid. To say otherwise is a contradiction.

On a basis of the authoritative media consensus’s interpretation, if it is valid, ET might be charged with showing a lack of sympathy in that critique of social values which her Tweeted picture was intended to say.

But there is no good reason for concluding that ET did intend what the authoritative media consensus of interpretation claimed she intended, nor even for claiming that any part of what this consensus has surmised about her Tweeted photo are in fact are her actual views.

There is evidence to the contrary. Had ET foreseen the upshot of her having Tweeted her picture; and had she imagined the full gamut of argument and comment that has been concocted by media out of her having tweeted it; and then had she envisaged her career destroyed and her post resigned; then she probably would not have Tweeted the picture.

This line of argument implies that at the very least ET did not examine or become conscious of the full meanings of her intentions in Tweeting the picture; and that the baroque elaborations created around the picture subsequently by the authoritative consensus of the media – means that at least some of these media elaborations – were wholly the inventions of media persons’ avid imaginations.

One might go further and say honestly that it is a (remote) possibility that none the materials that the authoritative consensus of media has drawn out of the picture and written down as accusations may be attributable to the actual intentions of ET.

One can go further still and say that the intentions of ET might have been misinterpreted greatly in the flush and flurry of lurid comments made by the authoritative consensus of the media.

But let us say that ET was truly taken aback by the revelations in the media of the fuller meanings of her actual intentions; them having been revealed to her by subsequent commentary from this authoritative consensus concerning her Tweet.

So we have a situation in which an authoritative consensus on the face of has seemed to be able to see further into ET’s intentions than she herself had been able to.  Now for this authoritative consensus to have recognised more profoundly than the actual author of the Tweet, what the Tweet and the author meant when it was tweeted; this situation perhaps signifies several things:

  • That ET, by comparison to the authoritative consensus is less gifted with self-insight
  • That the authoritative consensus, because it has shown deeper insight, has been able to do so because its resources to descry and describe the critique of social attitudes are more developed.
  • And that these greater resources exist for that consensus because the same critiques of the same social attitudes resonate more deeply within its members minds than they do in ET’s mind.
  • That ET consciously at least was intending a less profound or harmful critique of social attitudes that she was claimed to be commenting on
  • That in effect the authoritative consensus has been ‘putting words into ET’s mouth’ – since remember – no words from ET accompanied the picture when she Tweeted it
  • That the authoritative consensus has profounder insight because – remember -‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ – and ‘to the pure all things are pure’.

For a person psychologically to have resources for profound insight into situations demands of necessity a concomitant degree of experience and feeling and understanding in that person, concerning the issues surrounding their insights; so that profundity can be reached out for and retrieved from such resources inside a person.

Personally speaking, there appears to me to have been a lot of presumption from the authoritative consensus of media about ET’s intentions and her views; and about what motivated her to Tweet her picture.

She has been accused, tried, convicted, and punished by media. A lynching

This authoritative consensus, whose members claim authoritatively to have known ET’s inner intentions, might look to themselves; and so examine and acknowledge their own intentions, in their combining together in a media hunt and chase to disgrace and defame ET.

‘Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone at her’.