For example, Sanofi individually spent $4.77M lobbying efforts in the US apart from any contributions to trade groups.
PDF warning: https://www.sanofi.com/assets/dotcom/content-app/documents/L...
For perspective, weren't the sales from one drug just in the US alone enough the boost the entire economy of Denmark?
9M is peanuts, it may give you few votes on a matter or two but it doesn't move the big picture a bit.
For example, a $10,000 donation obscures that the lobbying group might also have threatened to donate millions to a competitor in the next election.
Most incumbents stay in office not by advancing any particular policy, but by not making themselves an enemy of interests that could mount a campaign to replace them.
Dark money sounds like all political funding to me understanding of how these things work
One of my meds is $18k for a mililiter of fluid every 12 weeks, so I'd be happy to see some pricing reform.
What gets me is how people will distrust pharmaceutical companies - whose marketing claims are at least regulated by the FDA - and then blindly trust nutraceutical companies, random streamers (i.e. spon con), etc.
I think many of us trust that the system of trials set up with first world regulatory agencies is a whole lot better than the previous method of vetting drugs (I.e. the snake oil method of most of human history). When I take a drug, there’s a high (but not 100%) chance it is not unsafe and is effective, relative to what would exist without regulation. And that’s about it.
But even that is merely trust in the regulators to do a better job on the whole than no regulators. It’s got little to do with trusting pharma cos. All I trust them to do is maximize profits like any other corp and I don’t think anyone else trusts them any more.
It's just that "The Science" happens to be funded by big pharma, and only releases results that are in line with what the boards of big pharma want people to think.
Edit: and of course, any science besides "The Science" is "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories".
juvenile terms limit the public’s ability to understand them and effectively exercise any sentiment for or against them