3 ms·
In "clinical testing for safety-monitoring or marketing purposes", "marketing purposes" doesn't mean spending money on ads and stuff like that, it means doing c
by streptomycin 3y ago
In "clinical testing for safety-monitoring or marketing purposes", "marketing purposes" doesn't mean spending money on ads and stuff like that, it means doing clinical trials to see if a drug works for a certain disease or population, or to compare their drug against a competing drug, or whatever. This is the insanely expensive research that pharma companies do to see if drugs actually work, that everyone likes to ignore when talking about greedy pharma companies.
Results of clinical trials (if successful) can then be used in ads, but that would not be R&D expenditure.
- consumer451 3y agoHmm, thanks. Now that I search more, I am not as sure of my original point. However, could we agree that DTC pharma advertising has very controversial benefits for patient outcomes, at best?
- streptomycin 3y agoI will agree with that, if we can also agree that pharma companies spend tons of money on clinical trials, and it's difficult to imagine where that money would come from if they didn't exist :)
- bart_spoon 3y agoDoes it? What would those be?
- ethanbond 3y agoIn fact anything that pharma companies say about a drug must be information from a clinical trial. One of those little surprising but obvious in retrospect facts. Clinical trials must be designed not just to 1) find out whether the drug works, 2) find out whether it’s safe, 3) ideally avoid information that it’s not safe, but also 4) generate the numbers they can put on brochures to compare it against alternatives. Then all of those are balanced against the immense cost (to pharma) and complexity (to pharma, CROs, trial sites, and trial participants). It’s a ludicrously complex business process.