5 ms·

The drug companies spend vastly more money on marketing than they do on research, and furthermore, the vast majority of the research goes into treatments rather

The drug companies spend vastly more money on marketing than they do on research, and furthermore, the vast majority of the research goes into treatments rather than cures, because the former makes money and the latter does not. The world would be better off without American drug companies dominating the market, even if it meant no Viagra.

evgen 17y ago
Strange that you managed to skip the real cost sink for new drugs and medical procedures: testing. The marketing cost is a direct result of the huge cost of getting a basic research breakthrough moved all the way through the process to a safe and effective treatment that has FDA approval. > the vast majority of the research goes into treatments rather than cures, because the former makes money and the latter does not. [citation needed] This sort of conspiracy-theory bullshit is really annoying because it fails even the most basic logical analysis. If company A develops a treatment for a disease then it will be able to make more over the long-term than company B which develops a cure for a disease. But if company A develops a treatment and two years after it gets through testing company B comes up with a cure for that same disease then company A is going to lose a boatload of money. The only way this would work is if these companies were acting as a colluding cartel, and so far all evidence seems to indicate that the companies hate each other even more than we hate them. > The world would be better off without American drug companies dominating the market, even if it meant no Viagra. I happily invite you to try to live the remainder of your life eschewing treatments developed by American drug companies. Viagra may make a nice whipping-boy for your tirades, but you do know that it was developed when stage 2 testing for an angina drug revealed its more popular side-effect, right? Pfizer did not set out to keep aging baby-boomers smiling, it just happened upon it while actually trying to cure coronary artery disease.
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  This sort of conspiracy-theory bullshit is really annoying because it fails even the most basic logical analysis. If company A develops a treatment for a disease then it will be able to make more over the long-term than company B which develops a cure for a disease. But if company A develops a treatment and two years after it gets through testing company B comes up with a cure for that same disease then company A is going to lose a boatload of money. The only way this would work is if these companies were acting as a colluding cartel, and so far all evidence seems to indicate that the companies hate each other even more than we hate them. It doesn't require a "conspiracy theory"; it's simple obvious fact: drug companies don't fund studies to develop and test drugs that won't be profitable. Tell me, why do you think they would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and test a drug that won't make money? Your argument doesn't even make any sense; it requires that drug companies do something that is financially illogical.

evgen 17y ago

Strange that you managed to skip the real cost sink for new drugs and medical procedures: testing. The marketing cost is a direct result of the huge cost of getting a basic research breakthrough moved all the way through the process to a safe and effective treatment that has FDA approval. > the vast majority of the research goes into treatments rather than cures, because the former makes money and the latter does not. [citation needed] This sort of conspiracy-theory bullshit is really annoying because it fails even the most basic logical analysis. If company A develops a treatment for a disease then it will be able to make more over the long-term than company B which develops a cure for a disease. But if company A develops a treatment and two years after it gets through testing company B comes up with a cure for that same disease then company A is going to lose a boatload of money. The only way this would work is if these companies were acting as a colluding cartel, and so far all evidence seems to indicate that the companies hate each other even more than we hate them. > The world would be better off without American drug companies dominating the market, even if it meant no Viagra. I happily invite you to try to live the remainder of your life eschewing treatments developed by American drug companies. Viagra may make a nice whipping-boy for your tirades, but you do know that it was developed when stage 2 testing for an angina drug revealed its more popular side-effect, right? Pfizer did not set out to keep aging baby-boomers smiling, it just happened upon it while actually trying to cure coronary artery disease.

DarkShikari 17y ago
This sort of conspiracy-theory bullshit is really annoying because it fails even the most basic logical analysis. If company A develops a treatment for a disease then it will be able to make more over the long-term than company B which develops a cure for a disease. But if company A develops a treatment and two years after it gets through testing company B comes up with a cure for that same disease then company A is going to lose a boatload of money. The only way this would work is if these companies were acting as a colluding cartel, and so far all evidence seems to indicate that the companies hate each other even more than we hate them. It doesn't require a "conspiracy theory"; it's simple obvious fact: drug companies don't fund studies to develop and test drugs that won't be profitable. Tell me, why do you think they would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and test a drug that won't make money? Your argument doesn't even make any sense; it requires that drug companies do something that is financially illogical.