> a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of stimulants
Notice the "than an endless litany of stimulants" part. Saying something like:
> so it all boils down to the pharma companies not creating enough drugs for ADHD?
afterwards almost seems like you are intentionally misconstruing this.
Is it not possible that the author wants "Big Pharma" to spend time researching alternative treatments rather than just cranking out "yet another stimulant?" Is it not possible that the author wants more non-medicinal treatments to be explored?
---
That said, I think that "Big Pharma" has earned its negative moniker. Just look at the front-page story from yesterday about EpiPen prices being jacked up to the point where people may not be able to afford them. I don't think that being against price gouging a "captive audience" in a way that possibly threatens their health is the same thing as being against "a pharmaceutical company selling a product."
Whether you consider the opinion right or wrong is beside the point that I was making (that the parent to my post seemed to be "tilting at windmills"). Saying that the author has an inconsistent position of "there are too many drugs" and "there need to be more drugs" seems like a poor reading of that sentence.
I understand the point you are making, but in reality drugs will get developed based on their likely risk/reward ratio only.
If you want more diversity, unless there is a non-market force (which honestly shouldn't be needed here, there is high demand), pharma companies will just keep picking at the lowest hanging fruit.
Eventually, they'll get up to the non-stimulant variety, but developing an entirely new class of drugs is a Herculean effort with very low likelihood of payoff. To make it work, you need more data on the disease (e.g. more time), and some luck out of academia (which is where 99% of drugs come from anyway). They will also need a lot of money to do it, so anything they can produce in the meantime is essentially on that track. Thus, the wording "even more drugs".
Referring to an industry as "them" is not constructive. Comcast has a horrible reputation for internet service, does that mean we are all a part of "big tech" out to screw the little guy?
Pharma companies will develop drugs that they think they can sell. If it were possible to create a stimulant variant profitably, companies would do so like any other rational actor.
The epipen story is sad, I agree, and it would be nice if it were easier to get a generic onto the market. The money for more drug research has to come from somewhere, though, so more profitability for the industry will have a positive long term affect even if the short term is highly unfortunate for the patients.
> The money for more drug research has to come from somewhere, though
The EpiPen has been on the market for awhile. Why the sudden price hike? Were they operating at a loss before?
This does not seem like a case of "we have to recover our costs" and comes across more of a case of "we are a monopoly so fuck you, give us your money."
An unregulated free market is not the same thing as capitalism.
There is nothing preventing you or anyone from developing a generic epipen, especially since it is just a plastic housing around a syringe. It just takes time and money.
Also, R&D costs are already paid for. If they are using money for R& D it will be for something else. Profitability in the pharma industry is generally low, there are lots of failed drugs that have to be paid for by something. Arguing that companies have a moral responsibility to price products low is unfortunately not true.
> a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of stimulants
Notice the "than an endless litany of stimulants" part. Saying something like:
> so it all boils down to the pharma companies not creating enough drugs for ADHD?
afterwards almost seems like you are intentionally misconstruing this.
Is it not possible that the author wants "Big Pharma" to spend time researching alternative treatments rather than just cranking out "yet another stimulant?" Is it not possible that the author wants more non-medicinal treatments to be explored?
---
That said, I think that "Big Pharma" has earned its negative moniker. Just look at the front-page story from yesterday about EpiPen prices being jacked up to the point where people may not be able to afford them. I don't think that being against price gouging a "captive audience" in a way that possibly threatens their health is the same thing as being against "a pharmaceutical company selling a product."