I echo your sentiments. The populace at large demands that drugs be safe and effective, but the amount of work necessary to show that is immense. New drugs require more than a decade of science by thousands of people, and only a small fraction of potential drugs ever make it past clinical trials. Factoring in the cost of all that failure, one estimate has the cost of getting new drug to market in the first place to be about $1.7 billion - yes, that's billion with a B.
So, sure, drugs can be cheaper...but they'll be either less effective, or less safe.
xenomancer said: "...there is a serious conflict of interest inherent to their business model. They are not required...to provide an adequate supply of affordable medicine."
In the US, the FDA does indeed keep tabs on product supply, especially for those products that onyl have a single supplier (mostly, products still under patent protection). Serious, heavy fines are levied against those companies who fall short of keeping the patient supplied. Granted, affordability is outside the scope of FDA's mandate, but that's a separate topic.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gunther Maplethorpe.
Re: Anger
So, sure, drugs can be cheaper...but they'll be either less effective, or less safe.
Re: Hippocracy
In the US, the FDA does indeed keep tabs on product supply, especially for those products that onyl have a single supplier (mostly, products still under patent protection). Serious, heavy fines are levied against those companies who fall short of keeping the patient supplied. Granted, affordability is outside the scope of FDA's mandate, but that's a separate topic.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gunther Maplethorpe.
Submit a story now.