4D·

How worth buying do you see Merck & Co?

I am still relatively new to the subject and find $MRK (+0%) really interesting.

What do you think of the share?

8 Comentários

risk_taker_2194@risk_taker_2194

I am invested and confident

•

D.S.@Cato_Bamboo

I am neither invested nor confident! Keep your hands off it!

•

Thoranos@Thoranos

Produce HPV vaccinations and push them on children. I think that's very questionable and ethically not ok.

••

DonaldTruck@DonaldTruck

@Thoranos Would you like to explain your point of view in more detail? After all, we are talking about prevention with efficacy rates of over 90% in some cases for virus-related cancers.
It is true that vaccines are given to children and young adolescents. However, the vaccine only has a preventive effect. As an alternative, we could take the vaccine until they reach the age of majority and then vaccinate them.

••

Thoranos@Thoranos

@DonaldTruck Promotes autism. Before this vaccination, children lived well without it. I don't believe any marketing promises from Big Pharma since Corona.

••

DonaldTruck@DonaldTruck

@Thoranos Let's go for it and not trust the science (steep thesis in my opinion, but okay). Autism is by definition (definition. This does not require a study, because you are free to define the term yourself. But I assume that we are referring to the generally accepted definition.) a congenital (important word) developmental disorder of the brain (I would have to look up the exact areas). If you don't plan to vaccinate the fetus at an early stage (it makes no sense for the mother, as the vaccination only has a preventive effect and the train has left the station in most cases), it CAN'T promote autism. The only possibility would be to redefine the concept of autism. However, there is no (okay scientific) basis for this. However, this basis is not only provided by Merck. I can understand your mistrust due to a lack of communication and occasional scandals in the industry. However, I consider the humanitarian benefits of the industry to be far greater than the harm (which is of course no justification for the person affected) that happens from time to time. Moreover, the intransigence usually arises (in my opinion) from an increasingly complex basis of understanding. This is not an accusation of intellectual narrow-mindedness, but is exactly how I feel in many fields outside my professionally technical world. That's why I have my house planned and built and don't go to Obi myself to buy bricks. I assume that all the trades have more expertise than I do and that, even if there are some wrong/bad decisions among them, the overall result is better than if I had carried out the construction myself.

••

Thoranos@Thoranos

@DonaldTruck Occasional scandals? Ha ha. The pharmaceutical companies are sued almost every year. Since it doesn't hurt them, these costs are already factored in. I admire your naivety. Not everything that is sold in the name of progress is good.

••

DonaldTruck@DonaldTruck

@Thoranos and again: change of perspective.
Of course, it's never all "good". I never claimed that. But only in the sum total. Now the question arises as to how you can judge this better from the outside (assuming you are not a pharmacist or similar and have the recourses to carry out a study yourself).
Medicine is produced there for millions to billions of people. It is only understandable that, given the heterogeneous anamnesis, complications arise somewhere. It is completely understandable that costs for lawsuits are factored in.
Addendum: I do not deny that there are "black sheep", but here too: you have them everywhere to such an extent that the damage does not equal the benefit of the sum of all.

••