4 ms·

This is a complicated area but given: The relative spend on R & D vs Marketing The fact that the taxpayers already funding a lot of the research (university g

This is a complicated area but given: The relative spend on R & D vs Marketing The fact that the taxpayers already funding a lot of the research (university grants mostly, I believe) The fact that lifestyle drugs are much more likely to be developed. It would seem hardly any new antibiotics are being developed (I'm not saying none) despite the so-called superbug crisis I'm just not sure the current system works for most people.

_Wintermute 7y ago
> The fact that the taxpayers already funding a lot of the research (university grants mostly, I believe) I see this argument a lot, but most people don't realise the amount of research, work and vast amounts of money that goes into turning an academic finding into an effective drug on the market. Identifying a cellular pathway involved in a disease, or even going as far as presenting a hit compound that targets that pathway in a paper is such a small step towards a useful drug. There are hundreds of things that are yet to be considered and any one of them could result in the entire project being scrapped, and that is of course assuming the work published by academia can actually be replicated.
- ldng 7y ago
  R&D is costly yet pharmas make margins only second to ad tech industry. Maybe I'm stupid but I can't reconcile the two...
  - refurb 7y ago
    The best Pharma you’re looking at are the ones that are successful, not the ones that go under. And margins have to be high - what other investor would risk hundreds of millions on a 1:10 bet unless high margins.
coredog64 7y ago
Cialis and rogaine (two “lifestyle drugs”) are actually failed heart disease treatments. In the first case, patients asked to stay on it despite lack of efficacy in treating the main condition. I’m the second, female patients complained about the side effects. Preemptively, I’ll take on the other talking point: “Me too” drugs are actually important. All meds come with side effects, either from the active ingredients or the inactive ingredients. Having options allows patients to choose something that works for them. Multiple treatments also means competition and lower costs.

_Wintermute 7y ago

> The fact that the taxpayers already funding a lot of the research (university grants mostly, I believe) I see this argument a lot, but most people don't realise the amount of research, work and vast amounts of money that goes into turning an academic finding into an effective drug on the market. Identifying a cellular pathway involved in a disease, or even going as far as presenting a hit compound that targets that pathway in a paper is such a small step towards a useful drug. There are hundreds of things that are yet to be considered and any one of them could result in the entire project being scrapped, and that is of course assuming the work published by academia can actually be replicated.

ldng 7y ago
R&D is costly yet pharmas make margins only second to ad tech industry. Maybe I'm stupid but I can't reconcile the two...
- refurb 7y ago
  The best Pharma you’re looking at are the ones that are successful, not the ones that go under. And margins have to be high - what other investor would risk hundreds of millions on a 1:10 bet unless high margins.

coredog64 7y ago

Cialis and rogaine (two “lifestyle drugs”) are actually failed heart disease treatments. In the first case, patients asked to stay on it despite lack of efficacy in treating the main condition. I’m the second, female patients complained about the side effects. Preemptively, I’ll take on the other talking point: “Me too” drugs are actually important. All meds come with side effects, either from the active ingredients or the inactive ingredients. Having options allows patients to choose something that works for them. Multiple treatments also means competition and lower costs.