TOPIC:

splitdog wrote: You said, "Are these the people that I would invest my hard earned with"?
I would say, "Yes". Based on normal, sound business decisions. There could be any number of things going on. Maybe Merck is on to a new approach for a cancer drug. Now maybe Gilead wants to pursue that with great speed. Who knows? But no question they are on the backside of the bell curve already. Just sayin'.....

I would not invest my money on them. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but even though it would be a sound business decision and I will probably lose some potential high earnings, I would seek to invest my money in a company being cleaner, morally speaking. If I would invest my money on G., I would have the feeling that I would be making something that forbids the patient's access to medicine, thus I would contribute to the death of many. So.... no, no, no.
But this is my opinion, as a person who was denied the access to medicine and had to find my own way to get treated. I do not expect that healthy people, who do not have to follow the path I did (or all of us from here did), will understand this positioning. Apart from a couple of doctors of course, who have the ability to "see the forest through the trees" and support the patients to get treated with generics.

@splitdog: I understood what you meant and the rationale behind it. What I wrote above is not a critique directed to your post. For an investor who never heard about HCV (or the health issues generated by HCV), I guess such an investor will (prefer) see the full part of the glass "I am investing the money in a company developing advanced cure, blah blah blah". So investing in Gilead will mean a sound business decision.

Cheers,
RHF

Other companies will focus on the developing world and retreatment therapies.

ROHCVfighter-- Yes, I probably would invest elsewhere, too.

Who knows? Maybe Gilead's greed will make them abandon HCV for more 'lucrative' drugs--maybe to treat cancer-- and they can overprice them to the point where generics can come into the picture and again cure many.

If you look at it logically from the point of return on investment.

90% cure (Sof+Riba or Sof+Led) - leaves 10%

90% cure (Sof+Vel) in that 10% leaves 1%

90% cure (Sof+Vel+Vox) in that 1% leaves 0.1%

0.1% of 180 million is "only" 180,000 total patients versus 179,820,000 who could have access to curative medication that already exists.

With ABT-493 3 x better than GS-9857 (Vox) and ABT-530 10 x better than Velpatasvir for all intents and purposes 99.9%+ of people can be cured with existing medications.

The issue we have is not further invention. It's deployment on an industrial scale.