You admitted to being unable to do so.

You made an extremely specific request involving MSM and other terms I hadn't heard of. Which I obliged, by providing you with an example.

It's probably safe to assume that nothing has changed.

Have you even read my comment? I'll include everything but the first sentence here again, to make it easier:

Pharmaceutical companies excessively profiting more than the value they're providing isn't [ok]. They shouldn't be exploiting their monopoly to artificially drive prices up – or, if you're a more staunchly capitalist person, they shouldn't be exploiting their wealth to ensure their monopoly.

That is me taking a position that "oppose[s] the corporate economic interests" as you put it. Why are you attacking the characteristics of me, the writer, instead of my argument? I was literally agreeing with you.

It's worth noting that rather than attempt to refute the fact that you are a dedicated supporter of big pharma,

I didn't feel the need to repeat the comment you'd replied to. I have been unable to refute this in your eyes before, so I don't see how now will be any different.

you instead chose the appeal to emotion fallacy; and are pretending to be a victim.

It's not an appeal to emotion. I'm calling you out on your ad hominem and utter refusal to actually address my arguments. And even if I was invoking the appeal to emotion fallacy, that would not invalidate my claims; simply that an argument is fallacious doesn't make it false.

Is this seriously the best you can do? Why are you deliberately confusing things? If I'm wrong, why can't you argue against me, instead of completely ignoring my argument, linking to dozens of YouTube videos and calling me a shill for:

• not watching over a day's worth of videos; and
• not replying within a day.

This is not a fallacy. It is a question. Why are you not arguing properly?