Hacker News Reader

You are off by a factor 10. The 1 billion is in total over all the time needed to produce the drug (about 10 years), while ads are per year.

View on HN

ok, so 65 drugs in development, with 6.5 drugs released per year? does that seem plausible for the entire pharma industry?

The FDA approved 53 novel drugs in 2020. That was relatively high; most years have lower totals.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/817534/annual-novel-drug...

You notice you are off by a factor 10 and don't pause for a moment but instead immediately go "ok, so"?

If it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug and pharma spends 6.5 billion on ads, that would mean an implausibly small number of drugs being developed, no?

I don't see any reason to believe that pharma spends more on ads than R&D. Do you?

Just to chime in; the poster you're replying to is correct regarding your incorrectness related to the relative weighting of R&D vs. Marketing spend.

Pull a public filing for these companies and take a look at their balance sheets; it's pretty straight forward.

> that would mean

No.

> Do you?

The fact that you just reposted your above comment without any change despite knowing it was wrong and despite being called out on that. That seems like a strong point in favor of the opposite of whatever your position is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com