> if you take into account population and wealth. Yes, if we normalize by the things we're measuring, we reduce the observed effect... but that's a statistical

> if you take into account population and wealth. Yes, if we normalize by the things we're measuring, we reduce the observed effect... but that's a statistical tautology. For example, take Western European country prices as a reference point, and assume that the difference in price to the US is entirely an excess premium. That's already a dramatic overestimate, because it assumes that the prices in Europe would still be as low even without the US market, which we already know is not the case. In that case, Norvartis earned $8.6 billion from inflated prices in the US in 2015. And in 2015, their entire R&D budget was $9.9 billion, on a net income of $6.7 billion. In other words, if US prices were magically brought down to European levels, Novartis would somehow have to find another way to make up a sum of money that accounts for almost their entire R&D budget. And even if you assume that the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world would operate the exact same way without an explicit profit motive, without the inflated prices in the US, they would literally be losing money. > Stop spreading nonsense. From the Hacker New Guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.