←back to thread

275 points swores | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.326s | source
Show context
kazinator ◴[] No.40174260[source]
The cost of developing drugs is high because of all the drugs that fail, after requiring lots of money to develop. You can't just look at the successful drug and say that's the cost. There are drugs that don't get to the trial stage, so also you can't just look at trials, even if you include failed ones.

The researchers cited in this article seem to be promulgating the fallacy that we need only look at the cost of a successful drug trial, and that's the cost. The drugs magically appeared out of nowhere, for free, and equally magically, they are working drugs, so we already know our trial will succeed. It's just a charade we have to go pay for to get the government's rubber stamp, and then it's all good!

replies(3): >>40175091 #>>40176436 #>>40182039 #
1. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.40182039[source]
Yup. Only a small fraction of drugs ever make it to human testing. The winners have to pay for all the losers and then some (consider: You can play a game where you bet $1 and have a 1 in 10 chance of getting $10. Completely fair, but if you play long enough you're guaranteed to go bankrupt.)

There's also the time factor. Suppose you spend $100M to develop and sell a drug that brings in a total of $150M over it's on-patent lifetime. You *lost* money.