4 ms·
I wonder how much of that is just the result of bureaucratic inefficiency. I'm sure if one looks deep enough and wide enough, that cost may be cut down by sever
by fellellor 9y ago
I wonder how much of that is just the result of bureaucratic inefficiency. I'm sure if one looks deep enough and wide enough, that cost may be cut down by several orders of magnitude. Maybe not. However, no matter what the case, there may be no incentive to do so, for the people who are actually in a position to do such a thing.
- iplaw 9y agoI would have to say that not much is the result of pure bureaucratic inefficiency. The extensive clinical trials are there for a reason, and that is to prevent the release of thalidomide-like pharmaceuticals. Researching, developing, and vetting failed candidates is also a major cost that must be recouped via the drugs successfully brought to market. The actual costs associated with bureaucratic inefficiencies are nil in comparison. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development#Research_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development#Resea...
- everybodyknows 9y agoAre FDA vetting standards really uniform across all drugs, from children's vaccines, to last-resort therapies for the terminally ill? The latter surely have little to lose in taking a risky drug -- if they can afford it.
- fellellor 9y agoI'm still not convinced.