4 ms·

Because this drug can be cheaply manufactured out of patent. Let's say Remdesivir is the only drug that works, it's basically an admission that Gilead is going

Because this drug can be cheaply manufactured out of patent. Let's say Remdesivir is the only drug that works, it's basically an admission that Gilead is going to have us over a barrel.

munk-a 7y ago
Only if we chose to let them bend us over said barrel? The US government could simply seize the patent if Gilead acted in a manner against the public good.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The US government is not "we", even if we are in the US.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  And then what happens next time? Why spend all the time and effort, only to have what you did nationalized? Incentivizing people to not do productive things like develop drugs seems like a really bad idea.
  - sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
    I used to agree with you. Then I realized that drug companies spend more on lawyers than scientists.
    - _n_b_ 7y ago
      This isn’t even remotely close to true. 0.67% on legal[1] versus 17% on R&D[2]. [1] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-companies-indexing-allows-cross-industry-law-department-comp https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-com... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-drug-companys-spending-allocated-research-and-development-average.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru...
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        And how much on marketing?
      - sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
        You are right of course. My mistake. Marketing is where they spend their money!
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Nobody’s saying Gilead can’t make a profit. Just that they can’t make an obscene (“have us over a barrel”) profit.
    - tomohawk 7y ago
      The post I was responding to had the strong implication of a Mafiosi stopping by a store and saying "Nice store you have here - it would be a shame if something happened to it". "You might want to consider our needs and sell us stuff at what we consider a good price".
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        That's how the USA behaves literally all the time with other countries and foreign companies. It seems like a weird time to choose to play nice for once?
      - munk-a 7y ago
        My comment was specifically in regards to extortion, and you'd need the court of public opinion on your side to do it anyways. The US government still does use eminent domain to do stuff people don't want - see recent examples involving the Keystone XL pipeline and the border fence where everyone from native american tribesfolk to ranchers have had their property seized by the government against their wishes.
- wbl 7y ago
  So the reward for spending millions on neglected tropical diseases is nothing. That's a great motivator for the company that cured HIV and Hep C to keep working.
subsubzero 7y ago
> it's basically an admission that Gilead is going to have us over a barrel That's absolutely not what would happen. I was chatting with a family member who used to work in biotech/pharma and posed the question what would happen if Remdesivir is found to have efficacy against covid-19. What they said is basically there would be licensing done immediately to other pharma companies which would run manufacturing in parallel with what Gilead is doing. Gilead will be getting profits from each pharma company that gets a license. I am unsure why the lead time is so long, however it may be that the company does not want to create a huge supply of a drug that may not be effective. But this is very interesting, the pentagon is getting lots of remdesivir for troops so there must be some info that leadership has about its success rate: https://qz.com/1834939/how-the-military-secured-experimental-covid-19-drug-remdesivir/ https://qz.com/1834939/how-the-military-secured-experimental...

Because this drug can be cheaply manufactured out of patent. Let's say Remdesivir is the only drug that works, it's basically an admission that Gilead is going to have us over a barrel.

munk-a 7y ago

Only if we chose to let them bend us over said barrel? The US government could simply seize the patent if Gilead acted in a manner against the public good.

lonelappde 7y ago
The US government is not "we", even if we are in the US.
tomohawk 7y ago
And then what happens next time? Why spend all the time and effort, only to have what you did nationalized? Incentivizing people to not do productive things like develop drugs seems like a really bad idea.
- sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
  I used to agree with you. Then I realized that drug companies spend more on lawyers than scientists.
  - _n_b_ 7y ago
    This isn’t even remotely close to true. 0.67% on legal[1] versus 17% on R&D[2]. [1] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-companies-indexing-allows-cross-industry-law-department-comp https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-com... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-drug-companys-spending-allocated-research-and-development-average.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru...
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      And how much on marketing?
    - sadfklsjlkjwt 7y ago
      You are right of course. My mistake. Marketing is where they spend their money!
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Nobody’s saying Gilead can’t make a profit. Just that they can’t make an obscene (“have us over a barrel”) profit.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    The post I was responding to had the strong implication of a Mafiosi stopping by a store and saying "Nice store you have here - it would be a shame if something happened to it". "You might want to consider our needs and sell us stuff at what we consider a good price".
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      That's how the USA behaves literally all the time with other countries and foreign companies. It seems like a weird time to choose to play nice for once?
    - munk-a 7y ago
      My comment was specifically in regards to extortion, and you'd need the court of public opinion on your side to do it anyways. The US government still does use eminent domain to do stuff people don't want - see recent examples involving the Keystone XL pipeline and the border fence where everyone from native american tribesfolk to ranchers have had their property seized by the government against their wishes.
wbl 7y ago
So the reward for spending millions on neglected tropical diseases is nothing. That's a great motivator for the company that cured HIV and Hep C to keep working.

subsubzero 7y ago

> it's basically an admission that Gilead is going to have us over a barrel That's absolutely not what would happen. I was chatting with a family member who used to work in biotech/pharma and posed the question what would happen if Remdesivir is found to have efficacy against covid-19. What they said is basically there would be licensing done immediately to other pharma companies which would run manufacturing in parallel with what Gilead is doing. Gilead will be getting profits from each pharma company that gets a license. I am unsure why the lead time is so long, however it may be that the company does not want to create a huge supply of a drug that may not be effective. But this is very interesting, the pentagon is getting lots of remdesivir for troops so there must be some info that leadership has about its success rate: https://qz.com/1834939/how-the-military-secured-experimental-covid-19-drug-remdesivir/ https://qz.com/1834939/how-the-military-secured-experimental...