On Mar 1, 10:38*am, (Craig Gullixson) wrote:


Yes, developing drugs is expensive

For a multitude of reasons, not least of which (by any means) is that
big pharma has, for the past century or so, deliberately made it
so.....but that's a discussion for another time and audience.

(although much of the R&D is done
at universities using NIH funding).

True, bearing in mind that in this context, "universities" should be
understood to include medical schools, teaching hospitals, and a host
of other public and private educational institutions, as well as
public and private NON-educational institutions, corporations, etc.
all of which spend and/or receive the bulk of their costs/revenues/
expenditures/donations/outflow/inflow or what have you, on or from one
or another thing or entity with an uncomfortably incestuous
relationship with......wait for it!......NIH......and/or big
pharma.....same thing, actually.

Fisher? VWR? Labconco? Bio-Rad? Kimex? Coors? Santa Cruz?
Millipore? (a few thousand others?) All the same thing. Where does
the money come from and where does it go?

However, the amount pharma spends
on advertizing greatly dwarfs that actually spent on drug development.

True. Without qualification.

The financial risks is start-ups, as appears to be this case, is almost
certainly no worse than that of hi-tech companies. *So cry me no
crocodile tears on how cutting pharma profits will hurt drug development.

You will never make the self-described erstwhile capitalists believe
it, but the first best thing to do in promoting drug development is
gutting big pharma profits.

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Technical Support Manager * * * * * * * INTERNET:
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak * *PHONE: (575) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA * * * * * * * * * FAX: (575) 434-7029- Hide quoted text -

Um......hm.....
__________________________________________________ _______________________
giles
Astrolabialist (fourth degree).
Wetspot, Curdistan, I****younot.