4 ms·

You and Rick are incorrect. The pure research part is, as stated, a small part of the costs, but 2/3 of that amount is not dedicated to patent applications, an

by evgen 17y ago

You and Rick are incorrect. The pure research part is, as stated, a small part of the costs, but 2/3 of that amount is not dedicated to patent applications, and of the remainder the bulk of it is taken up by the costs of testing. Marketing is a large part of the costs, but it is not the largest component. > I may be wrong on each point, You are.

loup-vaillant 17y ago
I made another point: that the bulk of pharmaceutical business may not be really useful, or at least not critical (cosmetics and such). Did you say I am wrong on this point as well? Anyway, I am quite ignorant. Do you have any references I could read so I have a better understanding of the problem? Thank you.
- anamax 17y ago
  > I made another point: that the bulk of pharmaceutical business may not be really useful, or at least not critical (cosmetics and such). Did you say I am wrong on this point as well? Cosmetics? What cosmetics does Abbott make? To the extent that the argument has any connection to reality, it's a combintation of irrelevant and wrong. If you don't want to pay the costs of "cosmetics", don't buy them. To the extent that there's any cross-subsidization in Pharma, it goes from the "non-essential but popular" to the critical. In other words, you've got it backwards.
  - evgen 17y ago
    It is also worth noting that a lot of what we consider "non-essential" did not start out that way. Pfizer did not discover Viagra because they were looking to help aging baby boomers get wood; it started out as a treatment for angina (hypertension kills millions...) and it was not until phase one trials that it was discovered that one of the side-effects of sildenafil was to encourage erections. Along the route to trying to cure a deadly disease a blockbuster non-essential drug was discovered.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    Again, I don't know much about pharmaceutical industry. Do anyone have any reference?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Again, I don't know much about pharmaceutical industry. Not so fast. You made claims that depended on knowledge. You suggested policy. And now it turns out that you knew that don't know what you're talking about....
      - loup-vaillant 17y ago
        My bad. I currently know enough to be wary of even pharmaceutical patents (I think they should disappear, eventually), but still not enough to seriously back my claims. I know this is dangerous, I should have known better. Anyway, I stumbled upon a better source than myself: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... (a case against intellectual monopoly). Chapter 9 is particularly relevant here. If you have any counter-argument, I would be glad to hear them.

by evgen 17y ago

loup-vaillant 17y ago

I made another point: that the bulk of pharmaceutical business may not be really useful, or at least not critical (cosmetics and such). Did you say I am wrong on this point as well? Anyway, I am quite ignorant. Do you have any references I could read so I have a better understanding of the problem? Thank you.

anamax 17y ago
> I made another point: that the bulk of pharmaceutical business may not be really useful, or at least not critical (cosmetics and such). Did you say I am wrong on this point as well? Cosmetics? What cosmetics does Abbott make? To the extent that the argument has any connection to reality, it's a combintation of irrelevant and wrong. If you don't want to pay the costs of "cosmetics", don't buy them. To the extent that there's any cross-subsidization in Pharma, it goes from the "non-essential but popular" to the critical. In other words, you've got it backwards.
- evgen 17y ago
  It is also worth noting that a lot of what we consider "non-essential" did not start out that way. Pfizer did not discover Viagra because they were looking to help aging baby boomers get wood; it started out as a treatment for angina (hypertension kills millions...) and it was not until phase one trials that it was discovered that one of the side-effects of sildenafil was to encourage erections. Along the route to trying to cure a deadly disease a blockbuster non-essential drug was discovered.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  Again, I don't know much about pharmaceutical industry. Do anyone have any reference?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Again, I don't know much about pharmaceutical industry. Not so fast. You made claims that depended on knowledge. You suggested policy. And now it turns out that you knew that don't know what you're talking about....
    - loup-vaillant 17y ago
      My bad. I currently know enough to be wary of even pharmaceutical patents (I think they should disappear, eventually), but still not enough to seriously back my claims. I know this is dangerous, I should have known better. Anyway, I stumbled upon a better source than myself: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... (a case against intellectual monopoly). Chapter 9 is particularly relevant here. If you have any counter-argument, I would be glad to hear them.