[hvb2]

> Not to mention all the times FDA has said “you have to do X to get approved” and the company happily complies despite it delaying sales by several quarters.

The company happily complies?

Or just does it begrudgingly because not doing it delays sales a few more quarters if not indefinitely?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that a company would happily do anything additional. It's a cost of doing business. Let's not pretend they're angels, they're in it for the money not the greater good.

And if that last statement needs a rationale, tell me who is doing the work to find the next antibiotic or any other non chronic disease medication

[rendall]

Do you feel that the happiness of the company is salient to GP's arguments? That is, by refuting that part, do you refute the entire?

[hvb2]

I took issue with the happy part because it's a regulator not a customer kindly asking for a change.

Even if the cost of the change are very high, getting it approved is probably worthwhile. To say that they would do so happily implies that there's a motive beyond getting approval.

Based on these comments, maybe my interpretation was just off

[laughing_man]

I'm pretty sure any certain path to approval makes the company happy. Ecstatic, even. They get to move the drug from the liabilities to the asset column of their ledger.