Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3048)	12/4/2007 11:54:30 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

But how the marketing costs compare to the development cost is pretty much irrelevant. Marketing costs increasing doesn't make development cost any lower. If its expensive to market drugs thats just an additional expense that the profit from American consumers helps pay for. Not irrelevant at all. It's mostly pitting one almost identical drug against another. A relatively recent waste of money. New formulations of old active ingredients still cost money to develop, can be useful, and cost a lot of money to test. Also there was 17 approved drugs with new ingredients in 2002, and I suspect that that was a particularly low year considering the fact that it was picked to make the argument. Actually I have read that the pipeline for new drugs is terrible right not.