A joint study between Yale University, King’s College Hospital in London and Doctors Without Borders found a single shot could be made for just 89 cents.
Developing drugs, from a theoritical cure for something to an actual approved drug, normally takes years and a lot of drugs gets scrapped during this process. You don’t just have to prove that the drug is not causing more harm, your also have to prove how effective it is.
There a lot of full time employee people involved in everything from developing the actual chemical to executing clinical tests.
I’m not in any way defending the way “big pharma” acts today, but all of this is more complicated than a guy suddenly saying “I’m going to create a drug that cures cancer” and then just does it in 2
years.
So out of the 10 drugs you pour a couple of millions into the development of, just 1 or 2 might make it through and get approved. If you’re lucky.
So even if it’s just costs $5 manufacture that specific drug, the company still have to cover the losses from the other 8-9 that never made it.
Once again, I’m not defending all pharmaceutical companies. I’m just saying that the manufacturing cost of a drug that is approved is far from the actual cost.
So why didn’t anyone else start manufacturing it for $5 about 15 years ago then?
Patents most likely.
Interestingly its always libertarian types defending patents; rather than being against it for being government intervention.
In either case patents and copyright need reform for today’s economy.
It was only approved very recently. Manufacturing it years ago would have been a waste, because you wouldn’t have been able to sell it.
That’s the thing.
Developing drugs, from a theoritical cure for something to an actual approved drug, normally takes years and a lot of drugs gets scrapped during this process. You don’t just have to prove that the drug is not causing more harm, your also have to prove how effective it is. There a lot of full time employee people involved in everything from developing the actual chemical to executing clinical tests.
I’m not in any way defending the way “big pharma” acts today, but all of this is more complicated than a guy suddenly saying “I’m going to create a drug that cures cancer” and then just does it in 2 years.
So out of the 10 drugs you pour a couple of millions into the development of, just 1 or 2 might make it through and get approved. If you’re lucky. So even if it’s just costs $5 manufacture that specific drug, the company still have to cover the losses from the other 8-9 that never made it.
Once again, I’m not defending all pharmaceutical companies. I’m just saying that the manufacturing cost of a drug that is approved is far from the actual cost.
If you understand all that, then why did you ask why they didn’t manufacture it?
Have you ever heard of rhetorical questions?