>> your question was obviously biased towards the patient welfare proponent.
I think both sides are necessary, but the con side is usually more well thought out IMHO <<
My question was biased towards the unpaid proponent , because that is the gist of the point I was making. I have my own problems with Abigail Alliance positions which , while noble , are unworkable.
The reason the con side is more well thought out in this sort of situation is that the con side is extremely well-financed. That's the problem , IMO. Money buys "facts" just like it buys votes. If big pharma can put every thought leader in any given field in their back pocket , what chance do we have of hearing "well thought out" arguments of both sides of a drug approval issue ? Zero.
Bought and paid for "professional proponents" can do much more damage over the long haul than the likes of Walker because they present better arguments , have superior credentials , etc. That's the definition of pernicious propaganda , IMO.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
