[malandrew]

> I'm not even sure if you even read that list > Roche, Sanofi, Chugai, and GlaxoSmithKline

Yes, at their US research labs. Most of these companies do a lot of their research in the US these days and continue to move more R&D to the US. If it's developed in the US by individuals working in the US because the opportunities are in the US, that makes it a US-developed drug. I went through each and every WHO essential medicines drug developed since 2000 and verified where each was developed.

> It's also interesting to note that most of these pharmaceuticals target and _incredibly small_ number of people worldwide at outrageous costs.

As someone that uses an orphan drug developed in the US to improve my quality of life, I'm glad. Do you want to take that option away from me and others like me?

[Daishiman]

> As someone that uses an orphan drug developed in the US to improve my quality of life, I'm glad. Do you want to take that option away from me and others like me?

I don't believe that medicine is a zero-sum game, but I _really_ wonder if a country where thousands of people die from not being able to afford relatively accessible medication is spending its money wisely.

[malandrew]

For what it is worth. I've been taking this medicine for the last 2 decades. It was only recently made available in Canada and Italy. It's available in no other countries.

It's not zero sum, but there absolutely are tradeoffs and everyone championing the national healthcare model used in countries like Canada and those in Europe are being willfully blind to the collateral damage to US-developed medical innovation.

When thousands of people die because treatment doesn't even exist for them, where is that accounted for? My father has a disease that he is likely going to die from and most of the research done on that disease is done in the US and almost everything I read on this disease is published by US-based researchers.