4 ms·

That's an incredibly naive take and one that completely fails to understand the realities of the economics of drug development. Considering that in 2010, Forbe

That's an incredibly naive take and one that completely fails to understand the realities of the economics of drug development. Considering that in 2010, Forbes estimated that the cost of bringing a single drug to market, was between $4-11 billion dollars, you are buying between 2-6 extra drugs per year. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tr...) But that fails to account for the fact that the number of drugs doctors and patients have to choose from currently is staggering, and both groups have proven hesitant to switch to new therapies, and so by not advertising new drugs, the amount of money that can be made dramatically decreases, which further impacts the ability for pharma companies to invest in R&D. No one thinks it is ludicrous for Google or Apple to throw as much money as they do at marketing. Its capitalism, and if you have a problem with it fine, but it isn't evil for pharma companies to work under the same model that every other industry on the planet has and which has been the driving force of the planet for the last several centuries.

GeekyBear 9y ago
We don't need 20 additional drugs that sort of treat one condition (albeit with serious side effects) that the pharmaceutical company prefers we use because the profit margin is higher on new formulations with no generic equivalent. We need one additional drug that treats said condition better than the existing options, but with less side effects. The profit motive distorts what is best for patients.
- mft_ 9y ago
  You've got an overly negative and simplistic view of the Pharma industry. For sure, there are plenty of examples (do we need that many statins? do we need so many beta blockers?) to suit your narrative, but you're also missing the huge sums spent and strides taken in other areas, such as oncology. If you don't show a meaningful benefit here, your drug is a failure - it's that simple.

GeekyBear 9y ago

We don't need 20 additional drugs that sort of treat one condition (albeit with serious side effects) that the pharmaceutical company prefers we use because the profit margin is higher on new formulations with no generic equivalent. We need one additional drug that treats said condition better than the existing options, but with less side effects. The profit motive distorts what is best for patients.

mft_ 9y ago
You've got an overly negative and simplistic view of the Pharma industry. For sure, there are plenty of examples (do we need that many statins? do we need so many beta blockers?) to suit your narrative, but you're also missing the huge sums spent and strides taken in other areas, such as oncology. If you don't show a meaningful benefit here, your drug is a failure - it's that simple.