3 ms·
Really? I'm bet it has to do with further testing. You could give a little bit of credit to GlaxoSmithKline for working on this for 24 years. This isn't exact
by cjy 15y ago
Really? I'm bet it has to do with further testing. You could give a little bit of credit to GlaxoSmithKline for working on this for 24 years. This isn't exactly a good example of "big pharma" greed.
- JVirissimo 15y agoIf it was indeed made by GlaxoSmithKline, then this is a good example of "big pharma" greed. Only, in this case, "big pharma" greed might end up saving millions of lives.
- 0x12 15y agoThat all depends on the price. If the price is reasonable then fine. But typically big pharma that gets a lock-in on 'life' is anything but reasonable in their pricing, after all, what's the value of a human life. The 5% profits over costs is promising, even if it leaves some wiggle room.
- Confusion 15y agoHowever awesome the result, they're not in it out of charity. They will want a return on those 24 years of investment.