And GSK had ~$16 billion in _profit_ last year. It has been profitable for the past 15 years, usually in the $4b range.
They are choosing to not bring this product to market. They are also choosing to not allow another company bring it to market. That is clearly the best business choice for them according to their accounting, but they aren’t limited in trying to do it.
Yeah, because it would cost them too much to get it approved. Which is the FDA's fault.
The FDA should subsidize safety studies for drugs like this. This would actually make it more likely to get useful, functional drugs in the hands of Americans more quickly, ie the whole point of this article.
> And if you don't think drastically reducing the barriers to entry for products in to the us would make us less safe I'm certainly open to hearing how.
Most of the barriers to entry are more bureaucracy than safety, and the net effect is fewer medicines are available and those that are are more expensive. The greatest success story of the FDA is thalidomide, which killed or seriously injured around 100,000 worldwide over 50 years ago; meanwhile about 45,000 americans die every year from not being able to afford medical treatment, and that only accounts for medicines that made it through the approval process, not those where it wasn't economical to try.