I would publish a paper on it and then offer the drug free of charge to any independent (MUST be wholly independent; no other compensation would be offered, and

I would publish a paper on it and then offer the drug free of charge to any independent (MUST be wholly independent; no other compensation would be offered, and the condition of the offer is that they MUST publish regardless of the results) lab or clinic who wanted to test it. If my drug is really that good, I'm not going to have any trouble getting physicians interested in prescribing it. You're underestimating the level of professional interest in drugs that are genuinely effective. The reason it's become so hard to promote drugs is that most of them being introduced today are of little to no benefit, especially relative to side effects (and cost; poverty is a side effect). A drug that permanently and completely reversed Alzheimer's Disease in even 25% of patients would be an earth-shattering discovery and both clinicians and biologists would be lining up to study it. Likewise a drug that reversed its progress by 40% in 90% of patients for 10 years, etc. But most of what's coming out today is at best on the edge of statistical noise. When you've got a dozen companies spending tens of billions of dollars a year developing something that's 6% effective in 12% of the population and has serious side effects in 20%, according to a study with a 5% margin of error, it's going to be a very crowded, noisy market, because the noise is the only way to distinguish one very marginal treatment from another. Make something great and this problem will solve itself. The need for the AMA and other professional societies to involve themselves directly and provide impartial education to their members still exists, however. Some new treatments may benefit only a small number of people, and if the evidence for their effectiveness is strong enough, those professional societies should help make sure their members are aware of them. The converse applies, as well: members should be made aware of new drugs that are ineffective as well, and discouraged from prescribing them in most situations. The main point here is that the decisions physicians are making need be based entirely on the evidence of safety and effectiveness, not marketing hype or freebies. Again, I really don't see indications that genuinely great drugs are getting overlooked; if they are, it's probably because one overhyped drug is just like another to an overworked physician. A dramatic reduction in that noise will help with that.