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

The observation is that companies don't do things that lose money.

Or if they do, they run out of money and have to stop.

There is no "should" here. Just a description of how the world works.

I believe the argument is not that it's negative profit... It's just less profit than other pharmaceuticals.

And without knowing the specifics, there can be a lot of value from continuing to produce those sorts of things, if it's within reason. I mean shit they probably spend more on ads saying how great they are than it would cost to actually be great (by saving lives with cheaper meds)