Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

You can't compare running a clinical trial for a drug targeting a communicable disease in the developing world to trials for treatments of complex diseases in rich countries where you need serology, histopathology and radiological endpoints.

Worth noting as well that J&J have shut down their entire division in communicable diseases because it was so unprofitable for them.

(Source: I work in this industry)

Was it 'unprofitable' as in 'losing money', or 'unprofitable' as in 'not worth the time'? If it's the latter, I don't have enough information about the rest of J&J to draw any conclusions.

Financially, they are the same.

If you can make more money by not doing X, than doing X, it doesnt matter.

I guess all doctors should be cosmetic surgeons then?

Seriously, the argument is that drug companies should only do the most profitable thing? If that's the case, they deserve to have all subsidies removed, and be regulated into oblivion, because they will serve no purpose, but profit.

Just see what happened with the opioid epidemic. If you're only looking at next quarters profits and destroy public trust, while skirting the legal boundaries you'll make bank until you're not.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60610707

>Seriously, the argument is that drug companies should only do the most profitable thing?

You're the first one to make any kind of suggestion for what they should do, so I'm not sure why you're jumping to that conclusion

>If that's the case, they deserve to have all subsidies removed, and be regulated into oblivion, because they will serve no purpose, but profit.

The purpose that they serve is to save your life with drugs. If that doesn't mean anything to you and isn't worth any money then I don't think we will find much common ground.

In your analogy, drug companies are the doctors. They want to make money for saving your life. Why would you want to regulate them out of existence?