I would love to discuss the finer points of this with you. Not sure this is the right pace to do it.
We have been fed that narrative for decades now by Pharma and their lobby.
I call it pseudoscience, something that’s sounds reasonable and plausible but is disconnected from reality.
My opinion and perception is formed from a top-down approach; SEC filings - then dig down into the books, rather than the bottom-up stories fed to us with no supporting, third-party verified data.
Every couple few years I dig down on a few top companies, for my own curiosity and education, and end up amazed how much profit they create and what they spend it on.
Things like marketing budgets for advertising being orders of magnitude bigger than the actual RnD budget, stock buybacks, Dr. outreach programs etc.
And if you then really dig down into the RnD spending, you find that 70% of the work was done by the NIH or other government backed research entities that were licensed, bought, sold, then finished off in a phase 3 trial and patented for good measure only to be re-patented when a stereo isomer gets pushed down post 1st patent expiration.
I don’t mind Pharma making a healthy profit, but I also don’t care one bit to be fleeced over and over again by corrupt practices.