If the problem doesn't exist, how does a patent for a drug to treat it make _ANY_ sense? *tries valiently not to think of ways in which it could be abused*
That's what infuriates me so much about this news. What kind of mind could possibly think to develop a drug to suppress women's orgasms instead of to help them along? I'm reacting remarkably emotionally to this.
I wonder if they discovered it as a side effect of another drug they were working on, and decided to file the patent for that because the other purpose didn't work out.
I've contracted at a fairly large drug company and they don't put money into something they *know* they have no real market for. I'm guessing someone was reaching to justify R&D for a drug that didn't do what they originally wanted it to do, but picked that as the only thing it did actually do.
Or I'm just a hopeless optimist. Either is possible.
That is an excellent point. And I can easily see that as being why such a patent would happen.
Of course... if the drug _did_ already exist, I can also see people attempting to convince patients that they need the drug. (or drug companies trying to convince doctors to look for things that might need that... Perhaps, for example, to handle people who are addicted to sex, or something... *sigh*)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've contracted at a fairly large drug company and they don't put money into something they *know* they have no real market for. I'm guessing someone was reaching to justify R&D for a drug that didn't do what they originally wanted it to do, but picked that as the only thing it did actually do.
Or I'm just a hopeless optimist. Either is possible.
no subject
Of course... if the drug _did_ already exist, I can also see people attempting to convince patients that they need the drug. (or drug companies trying to convince doctors to look for things that might need that... Perhaps, for example, to handle people who are addicted to sex, or something... *sigh*)
no subject
no subject