I don't believe you are following the argument, but are instead making something up. Read what is written, but let me break it down for you further. Some of these drugs are untested, and are not going to be put through the rigor. A company that might have cut a corner or two... yea, they don't want this drug actually used, because, guess what, something is going to happen that is bad. But if they put that drug on the market, in order to collect the payment from the government, and nobody uses it... they got paid, they can pull the product, and not have to worry about any side effect lawsuits. Tracking so far? Good. For the companies that did the work, that have a true drug that will work... they don't want some shit company that cut the line to put a shit product out that nobody will use, because it erodes trust in a product they want to sell again, not pull from the market. Tracking still? Awesome. You made it. You read!
You are the one arguing and its with nobody. It costs a couple million to get initial API, i believe it is. And 1 in 6 makes it thru. Many run out of funding. If you can pay, you can play. Period. And the fda process which requires millions and billions has needed changing for years, as well as the exclusivity given by the govt for years, which allows companies to set the price. Dont really give a shit about your opinion or insults. People who have to remind others how smart they are, daily, arent as bright as they hope to be. Its an insecurity thing. You following?
I'm not saying a thing about how bright I am, but how god awfully simple you are. Oh my god, drugs to market costs a lot of money. Who knew? Please, regale us with more wisdom! Is water wet? Ice cold? Your brilliance on these stated things is needed, we couldn't possibly see such incredibly subtle concepts as barriers to entry. Jesus dude.
You got it. Millions arent unnecessarily spent. Time isnt wasted and potentially safer and more efficatious drugs arent shelved due to lack $ to pay the fees. Only the best drugs make it, not the ones with more $. Perfect system float. Good for you pegging it
Let me try and break this down further, since you're an idiot. I've bolded the changes. Copied and pasted from above: Some of these COVID vaccines are less untested, and are not going to be put through the rigor. A company that might have cut a corner or two... yea, they don't want their COVID vaccines actually used, because, guess what, something is going to happen that is bad. But if they put that COVID vaccine on the market, in order to collect the payment from the government (who have already promised a lot of companies a lot of money, that wouldn't normally be available, which is one simple way that someone with a working mind would be able to differentiate between normal drug methods and COVID ones) , and nobody uses it... they got paid, they can pull the product, and not have to worry about any side effect lawsuits. Tracking so far? Good. For the companies that did the work, that have a true COVID vaccine that will work... they don't want some shit company that cut the line to put a shit product out that nobody will use, because it erodes trust in a product they want to sell again, not pull from the market. Tracking still? Awesome. You made it. You read!
You are arguing those exact points i made, are you not? You keep telling me im wrong, yet you dont even have any idea what you are arguing about.
No, I'm not arguing those points, I'm arguing exactly what I've written, four times now. And you keep responding with unrelated shit.
I am dipping my toe into some nasty waters and talking about stuff I know jackshit about. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/10/2329 No drug since 2010 has been developed and released without some funding from the US government to the total of $100 billion dollars. Any orphaned drug research can have 50% of its costs written off on taxes. ~10% of all drugs released use patents generated by public research at academic universities. I am not saying that pharmaceutical companies are getting 100% funded by the government, but they obviously are not hurting. As to it keeping the little guy out of the game, I can see that. But in reality, can a garage doctor still come up with anything worthwhile? Honest question, because it seems to me that all of the new research requires some serious capital outlays in just DNA research, lab use, etc, and that is without red tape to get your foot in the door or pay for tests.
Rare, but it can happen. There aren't millions of drug ideas out there that would be if only the barrier to entry was lifted. But of the one or two, yea, they're kept out, or sold if showing some promise. But that doesn't relate to the COVID-19 drugs and vaccines that have already been bought by the government.
Dude, i made a comment about pharma costs, pay for play and fda timetables in the past, as well as companies would rather pay less and speed up the clock. If you disagree, i dont care. The rest of your "4 times posting it" has you arguing with yourself or make believe posts.
The continuity of the thread is about COVID-19 drugs, as none of the other stuff has changed, correct? Yay, so now we've established the the only way your posts can make sense is if we're talking about COVID-19 vaccinations and drugs. So, in that context, that we can only be talking about COVID-19 things, how in the world have my posts said any of the following: Eh?
Gotta be talking about COVID drugs here, right? What other costs are being saved but COVID drugs? So, yea... COVID only.
So it can take 12 years, except when we need it done quickly then it can be done in months. Makes my point about waste of time amd money. 12 years to 6 months. Quite a cut for fast track approval
And which drugs as treatment for which issue, today, are having years knocked off the process? COVID drugs. That's it. So if COVID drugs are the only drugs that are right now having years knocked off the process.... then we're just talking about COVID drugs. And now, you can understand, the argument, that some are liking it, and some are not.
Idk wtf you and ssmiff are arguing about, but why should R&D be viewed as a sunk cost? Let me edit this: I get why R&D is considered a sunk cost, and I don't think it's really a "should be viewed" sort of thing. R&D is a sunk cost, period. That said, I guess my question is more to your first point of factoring it in to cost and inflating expenses to justify price. Sunk cost or not, it's still a cost. Why would you not then factor it into your expenses and your price?
Because almost no goods take in to account the cost of other failures, but that is exactly what drug companies are doing with "research." In other words, the price of a drug on the market isn't due to the true cost of that drug, but also a whole ton of related and unrelated failures. Which means the price of that drug is inflated.
