> Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. Viagra w

> Indeed, there are not enough incentives for pharma companies to target third world or not-so-common disease, but instead to push things like Viagra. Viagra was originally developed as a medication for cardiovascular disorders and hypertension, which are major problems in both the "third world" and in developed nations. It was only later on that they discovered its use for erectile dysfunction. As for marketing Viagra - why is that a bad thing? Given that they've already done the bulk of the R&D for it, making money off the blockbuster drugs is exactly how pharmaceutical companies can afford to pour research into drugs that are a lot less likely to succeed, or which target poorer populations. Or, if you don't want to look at Pfizer, look at Gilead. While it's easy to criticize them for charging so much money for Sovaldi (or charging so much for Tenofovir a decade ago) charging the patients who can afford it for the early years is exactly how they recover their costs and justify things like clinical trials for PrEP (which, it's easy to forget today, were a massive risk at the time), or direct market subsidizes of PrEP for people who can't afford it otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if they did something similar for Sovaldi in the next decade as well.