Yep true. But you also missed out that biotechs are trying to cure/treat serious diseases like cancer etc and not simply trying to sell more advertising.
Consider that orphan diseases are often not worked on due to either 1) not enough rich people have the disease or 2) only poor people have the disease so it's not worth it.
People in developing countries have serious diseases, but there's no money in it so no one is working on it (minus some efforts from people like Bill Gates).
Worst form of social darwinism EVER.
However, for those people that have or are going to get lung cancer or diabetes or other generally ( not always ) 'self-inflicted' diseases - should we just say - sorry - no treatment - it's you're own silly fault?
For heart disease - actually the best treatments are effectively preventative already - in cancer HPV vaccine is aimed at reducing cervical cancer - I've worked with the inventors of that.
In terms of 'whataboutery' of should you be spending money on rich peoples diseases ( whether self inflicted or not ), when you could save more lives in other countries with basic sanitation.
Well that's a whole different question - a question for collective action through governments or charity - not a question for commercial companies. Commercial companies have to find people able to pay for what they do ( which could be governments or charities ).
Personally I don't see why it needs to be either/or - ie why we can't we work on both cure's for cancer and provide clean water?