5 ms·

So you are asserting they don't want to benefit from both?

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
I don't know much about the economics of drugs, but I've seen this type of statement a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day. I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"), but it does not make sense from Merck's point of view.
  - bookofsand 5y ago
    > In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing)
    - Pyramus 5y ago
      That's a valid argument if marketing was the primary decision maker in drug development. But that is not the case, at this very moment Merck is likely developing several potential drugs for Covid in parallel, and there is no guarantee any of them will make it to market, costing Merck millions (probably billions) in development cost. I'm no proponent of big pharma, and it's possible executives at Merck convened and decided to bet it all on drug X and at the same time not to profit from ivermectin. I think it's very unlikely, because it doesn't make sense. It only makes sense in a comic world where everything is black and white and the motive of the bad guy solves the mystery. I'm very confused that Bret, who I respect, is falling for this simplistic ad-hominem argument.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    The profit margin on Ivermectin is likely nothing, while the margin on Merck's upcoming drug is likely very high.
  - fastglass 5y ago
    because the newer treatment will likely cost more money it's not like riverblindness is a first-world problem you can charge people more money for treating
eruleman 5y ago
Merck can't benefit from both ivermectin & their new emergency-use-authorized drug. Emergency use authorization requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives." [1] It's against their financial incentive to have ivermectin, an out-of-patent drug, be authorized for treatment of covid. See https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441?s=20 https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441... [1] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I don't get it. So are you saying somebody else should go for EUA for ivermectin for Covid, and then Merck couldn't go for EUA for their new drug? Or are you saying Merck couldn't go for several EUAs for Covid at the same time?
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    Merck can't get an EUA for their new drug if there's an existing treatment that works. If Ivermectin works, then their other drug becomes worthless. Same thing for the mRNA vaccines. They're all under EUA. It would've been impossible to get them an EUA if we had found out Ivermectin worked.
hollerith 5y ago
Ivermectin is an old drug, so cannot be patented, which means that Merck has no way to prevent competitors from selling the drug, so no way to keep prices high.
- dlp211 5y ago
  Yes, because we all know that insulin can be had for ten cents a vile right now....oh...wait. Can we please stop trying to rationalize an irrational market. There is no reason to believe that the age of the drug has anything to do with it's profitability.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 5y ago
    There are different insulins. It might be that the expensive ones are still under patent (and genuinely work better than the old ones for many patients). Also, it might be that some or all of the insulins are just naturally costly to manufacture, so that when competition is not prevented by patents, the price stays high. (This would be the case for example if the insulin must be extracted from pigs and if each pig yields only a few doses of insulin.) That doesn't contradict the fact that many drugs still under patent sell for 100s of times their cost of manufacture, then when the patent expires the sell price drops to close to the cost of manufacture.

I don't know much about the economics of drugs, but I've seen this type of statement a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008

Pyramus 5y ago
I don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day. I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"), but it does not make sense from Merck's point of view.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  > In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing)
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    That's a valid argument if marketing was the primary decision maker in drug development. But that is not the case, at this very moment Merck is likely developing several potential drugs for Covid in parallel, and there is no guarantee any of them will make it to market, costing Merck millions (probably billions) in development cost. I'm no proponent of big pharma, and it's possible executives at Merck convened and decided to bet it all on drug X and at the same time not to profit from ivermectin. I think it's very unlikely, because it doesn't make sense. It only makes sense in a comic world where everything is black and white and the motive of the bad guy solves the mystery. I'm very confused that Bret, who I respect, is falling for this simplistic ad-hominem argument.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  The profit margin on Ivermectin is likely nothing, while the margin on Merck's upcoming drug is likely very high.
- fastglass 5y ago
  because the newer treatment will likely cost more money it's not like riverblindness is a first-world problem you can charge people more money for treating

eruleman 5y ago

Merck can't benefit from both ivermectin & their new emergency-use-authorized drug. Emergency use authorization requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives." [1] It's against their financial incentive to have ivermectin, an out-of-patent drug, be authorized for treatment of covid. See https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441?s=20 https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441... [1] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge...

Pyramus 5y ago
I don't get it. So are you saying somebody else should go for EUA for ivermectin for Covid, and then Merck couldn't go for EUA for their new drug? Or are you saying Merck couldn't go for several EUAs for Covid at the same time?
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Merck can't get an EUA for their new drug if there's an existing treatment that works. If Ivermectin works, then their other drug becomes worthless. Same thing for the mRNA vaccines. They're all under EUA. It would've been impossible to get them an EUA if we had found out Ivermectin worked.

hollerith 5y ago

Ivermectin is an old drug, so cannot be patented, which means that Merck has no way to prevent competitors from selling the drug, so no way to keep prices high.

dlp211 5y ago
Yes, because we all know that insulin can be had for ten cents a vile right now....oh...wait. Can we please stop trying to rationalize an irrational market. There is no reason to believe that the age of the drug has anything to do with it's profitability.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 5y ago
  There are different insulins. It might be that the expensive ones are still under patent (and genuinely work better than the old ones for many patients). Also, it might be that some or all of the insulins are just naturally costly to manufacture, so that when competition is not prevented by patents, the price stays high. (This would be the case for example if the insulin must be extracted from pigs and if each pig yields only a few doses of insulin.) That doesn't contradict the fact that many drugs still under patent sell for 100s of times their cost of manufacture, then when the patent expires the sell price drops to close to the cost of manufacture.