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?
I don't see any reason to believe that pharma spends more on ads than R&D. Do you?
Pull a public filing for these companies and take a look at their balance sheets; it's pretty straight forward.
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.