[zem]

scienceblogs had a great piece on this: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_...

quoting:

What is most pernicious about the conspiracy-mongering stories being spread about DCA is that it builds false hope. People with cancer hear about this drug, and they think there's an amazing cure out there that's being withheld from them because of the greed of big pharma.

[ams6110]

"Big Pharma" have to invest a lot of R&D in cancer drugs. Do they really make profits in the "greedy" realm on this effort overall? I'd think they rake in the $$$ on stuff like Viagra and Rogaine.

[pygy_]

"Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D.

Even though some drugs are indeed more lucrative for them than others, they would not develop cancer drugs if they were not profitable.

[hga]

"marketing and advertising" also means informing doctors about new drugs and therapies. Outside of "miracle" drugs or new drug categories (e.g. ED or the low side effecting SSRIs like Prozac) that get "promoted" by the media etc. a new drug will do few any good if doctors don't know enough about it.

This is especially true for cancer drugs marketed to oncologists (which I suspect are never marketed directly to consumers...). The field is very complex ... and I recall that one of the major factors in the difference in outcomes between your local medical system and the major cancer centers is the better current knowledge of the practitioners in the latter.

[anamax]

> Big Pharma" invest more in marketing and advertising than in R&D.

That marketing and advertising spending is dominated by free and discounted drugs for folks who can't afford list price.

Are you opposed to that spending?