My comment may not be a persuasive argument, but either is yours. Where are your facts? Your referenced points? You state just as much opinion as I do. So, let

My comment may not be a persuasive argument, but either is yours. Where are your facts? Your referenced points? You state just as much opinion as I do. So, let's go through a quick run-down of the 'major' pharmaceutical companies of the world, and where they are headquartered. Company Revenue (USD) Headquarters Novartis 53.6 Bn Switzerland Roche 47.8 Bn Switzerland Sanofi 36.9 Bn France GSK 34.9 Bn UK AstraZeneca 26 Bn UK/Sweden Bayer 43.4 bn Germany Baxter 15.3bn US Pfizer 49 Bn US Merck 42.23 Bn US BMS 18.8 bn US So, 4 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies by revenue are headquartered in the US. By Revenue, those 4 account for 125.3 Bn out of a pie of 367.9 Bn; or 34%. It is not easy to get a list of the number of drugs under clinical trial, or the number of drugs that were recently brought to market by various manufacturers; and, as a side matter, a number of the more innovative drugs brought to market recently were all developed by small pharmaceutical companies (Boceprevir, Telaprevir, Imatinib, Ipilumimab) that were later acquired by the big boys. So a small pharma company did the innovating, usually funded by a university or the product of particuarly profound insights by PhD students; turned into successful drugs; run through to the stage 3 trial stage and then, once all the development costs are done and dusted, acquired for a discount price of the predicted future revenue stream So tell me, where are all the drugs being developed by america? I would say the rest of the world is more than pulling it's weight. In fact, given rough population parity between the European first world and the United states, it could in fact be argued that the United states is not pulling it's weight. I await your reasoned response