Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research

thanks for the information, interesting..

24.4% on promotion
13.4% on research and development
What is the other 62.2% spent on?

How did Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexichin define “promotion” and “R&D.”

Was the cost of equipment and the salaries for the researchers included in the “R&D” cost?

What percentage is spent on meeting government guideline and FDA related expenses?

“…proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources…”

If the databases were proprietary how did they get access to the information? If they had access to the proprietary databases, why is there a need for other data sources? What are these other data sources and how were they factored into the results?

“…to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”

Now the truth comes out. Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexichin performed this “study” with a goal in mind; the goal of showing drugs companies spend too much money on advertising.

I guess it is too much to ask for people to simply seek the truth.

Definitely some good information. Thanks.

like this is any big news…..all pharm companies spend 3-4 x as much on advertizing that research….typicallly 20 on research 40-60 percent on ads…

use to work at a big pharm…..they care as much about your health as the cigarette companies, they are out to make money…go figure….

LOL, must be nice having bags of money laying around!

http://www.anonymity.pro.tc

Нехорошее употребление материальных благ часто является вернейшим путем к величайшим невзгодам.

Вот именно поэтому и иногда не хочется идти вперёд!

Да, было бы смешно, если б к сожалению не было так грустно …

Видел что-то наподобие в англоязычном интернете, в Русскоязычном интернете про такие вещи как-то не особо часто посты увидишь.

Любопытно, а есть хоть кто-то, кто не согласен с автором? :)

Important to know the figures behind the development and promotion of drugs – due to the rocketing cost of development and governments worldwide squeezing profits and shortening exclusivity rights on the end products, pharma have to make as much as possible in an increasingly short time and competitve environment – a viscious cirlce. If we extend exclusivity then pharma could charge less and promote less and be more confidnet to invest in future research. Why does Paul McCartney get 50 years protection on the frog chorus and pharma get 5-10 years exclusivity on drugs that saves lives and costs $500M to get to market?

I of course, there is little that understood in this topic, but try to understand.

The publication is very well-published, the webmaster to explain everything, is what to think.

A very promising direction disclosed in the subject of this post. You should have read where some of this.

At one site I have read almost the same compilation of information and articles, but still the author thanks.

Gratifying that your blog is constantly evolving and updated with new articles. Such positions only adds popularity

I’m just dropping by to say that I very much liked seeing this post, it’s very clear and well written. Are you considering posting more about this? It appears like there is more fodder here for more posts.