3 ms·
>I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas
by StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it.
Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals?
- BobCat 10y agoBy selling it for $10, of course.
- user5994461 10y agoSimple: Add $2 for shipping. Profit from the inflated shipping free.
- gohrt 10y agoWith a patent on a formulation and delivery method. Most patented drugs sell at huge multiples of production cost.
- tomp 10y agoI doubt this would work very well in this case, given that it's supposed to be a once-in-10-years procedure... Most pharma companies are increasingly focusing in drugs for long-term management of chronic conditions (e.g. cancer) - keep people alive and consuming your highly expensive drug covered by their insurance is incredibly lucrative.
- smallnamespace 10y agoThey can't patent it very easily if someone else invented it. Otherwise you'd see people trying to patent 'formulations' of their competitors' drugs all the time. Even if they could patent a formulation, someone else can always jump in with a slightly different formulation at half the price.
- nylonstrung 10y ago>Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals? How much do you think the raw inputs for Cialis are? Gross margins at the aggregate level are around 80% for this stuff. If they are practicing value based costing they could simply just undercut surgical vasectomies slightly- I'm sure every man out there would choose an outpatient injection that is reversible vs a surgical operation. I'm eagerly awaiting it getting to the market but don't buy that as an explanation