Well said, that woman
Another point is that drug testing takes 10 years or more, which eats into the time available while the drug is still under patent during which the company can recover their costs and make profit. So not only do they have to recoup their $900M, they have to do it over a relatively short time before the patent expires and any old Tom, Dick & Harry Ltd can manufacture the stuff in a garden shed for tuppence-ha'penny.

I take antihistamines for hay fever. The drug, cetirizine dihydrochloride, is now off patent, so while they used to cost £5 for a packet of 7, I can now buy a generic packet of 30 for 29p. Manufacture of drugs is dirt cheap, but the research costs a bomb.

And I'm nothing to do with the pharma industry.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 12:39, 1 reply)

True
But don't neglect to mention that drug companies spend at least as much on marketing as they do on research, and some studies estimate over twice as much.

The whole "it cost us a lot to devlope this so this is why we are screwing you on the price and go f**k yourselves if you can't afford it" approach doesn't really stack up.

And don't even get me started on the benefits of economies of scale...
(Robin of the Hood isn't into the whole brevity thing, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 22:55, closed)