4 ms·
You are off by a factor 10. The 1 billion is in total over all the time needed to produce the drug (about 10 years), while ads are per year.
by diffeomorphism 5y ago
You are off by a factor 10. The 1 billion is in total over all the time needed to produce the drug (about 10 years), while ads are per year.
- nerfhammer 5y agook, so 65 drugs in development, with 6.5 drugs released per year? does that seem plausible for the entire pharma industry?
- nradov 5y agoThe FDA approved 53 novel drugs in 2020. That was relatively high; most years have lower totals. https://www.statista.com/statistics/817534/annual-novel-drug-approvals-by-cder/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/817534/annual-novel-drug...
- diffeomorphism 5y agoYou notice you are off by a factor 10 and don't pause for a moment but instead immediately go "ok, so"?
- nerfhammer 5y agoIf it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug and pharma spends 6.5 billion on ads, that would mean an implausibly small number of drugs being developed, no? I don't see any reason to believe that pharma spends more on ads than R&D. Do you?
- diffeomorphism 5y ago> that would mean No. > Do you? The fact that you just reposted your above comment without any change despite knowing it was wrong and despite being called out on that. That seems like a strong point in favor of the opposite of whatever your position is.
- ABCLAW 5y agoJust to chime in; the poster you're replying to is correct regarding your incorrectness related to the relative weighting of R&D vs. Marketing spend. Pull a public filing for these companies and take a look at their balance sheets; it's pretty straight forward.