Are you arguing that sexual dysfunction is not a worthy condition to treat? I would argue it has severe psychological ramifications and a negative impact on people's lives. As much as dying from cancer? No. But not something you can ignore.

We've made tremendous strides over the past two decades in treating severe diseases. Look at drugs like Imbruvica, Harvoni, Kadcyla. Women with stage 4 breast cancer can now expect to live 3 to 5 years with their disease vs. dying within a year. Tremendous progress. Just because "lesser" drugs are being developed doesn't change that.

And you'll have to explain Rexulti and Abilify to me. Abilify isn't an antidepressant, it's an antipsychotic. My other comment is that treating psychological conditions is incredibly hard. The placebo effect is a huge issue with clinical trials whether or not for-profit companies run them.

And as for "me-too" drugs that you mentioned, they have value to. Jenkins from the FDA actually stated we need more of them, not less.[1] Yes, a new drug might only be a small tweak of an existing drug, but all humans aren't the same. A patient may not be able to take an older version, but the me-too works for them. That has added value.

And as for "conning" doctors or patients in buying drugs they don't need, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Doctors are the final decision makers on what drugs are prescribed. If they don't do their homework and just prescribe something because they like the sales rep, that's on them.

[1]http://www.pharmexec.com/fda-more-me-betters-and-focused-bre...

“Choice is a good thing,” Jenkins commented, as later drugs in a class often enhance safety or efficacy for certain individuals. The move away from “me-too” drugs, he said, is “not necessarily good for public health.”