TOPIC:

Which wins?

www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/gilea...dUSL1N0Z506G20150619

This Blog Post Will Cost You By Jessica Wapner - with thanks to Jolie for finding it...

There is a cost for reading this post.

Let’s agree to a baseline of $100. That’s less than ten cents per word, so a pretty good bargain. This post won’t cure what ails you, but it might relieve some symptoms. Side effects will probably be minimal.

I wrote and scrapped several other blog posts before writing this one. Creating one post required dozens of failed attempts. That’s quite an investment, and I need to make sure that my costs are covered. So I’m raising the price to $150.

Also, the Research & Development for this post was extensive. I’m not just talking about Googling stuff. The effort that made this post possible stretches back over years, even as far back as college. Before that, I had to learn to read and write. All of that costs money, and I need to be recompensed accordingly. That brings the price tag of this post to $225.

Lucky for you I went into the science writing business. Not so lucky for me. If I had gone into drugs and biotech, I could have been making millions. But instead I am earning less because I must give the people what they want. I need to factor in what I’m not earning from doing other, more lucrative work. Make it an even $250.

Alas, there’s another problem. I could have invested the money spent on Research & Development in the financial markets instead. I need to account for that loss. $300. (As long as I’m doing imaginary investing, it might as well be lucrative.)

There are going to be people who can’t afford to read this blog post, so I need to charge you more in order to cover the expense of providing it to them for free. $325.

Readers outside of the U.S. won’t pay as much, so I need to make sure I’m covered for that loss, too. $350.

Remember, I only get $350 for as long as this blog post is patented, and there’s no guarantee that I’ll have another blockbuster success of a post in the future. I will need the money from this post to see me through future Research & Development until I finally create another masterpiece. Once the patent expires the price will plunge, so I have to earn as much as I can while I can. Without profits, I can’t continue to work. We all agree that new blog posts are vital and necessary. In fact, the posts are so vital and the years until success so unknown, I had better raise the price a bit more. $600 should do it.

Say the patent expires in eight days. If this post turns out to be a huge money maker—and really, who among you doubts that it will?—probably many people will create generic versions. They’ll use the generic name, something like “esomeprazole magnesium” or “armodafinil,” and will charge you just $1 for the read. Maybe less. My strategy is to pay each generic blogmaker $100 to delay their posts, thereby securing my role as the sole provider of these therapeutic words for at least a few more days. If you don’t like this tactic, you can sue me.

It’s true that public school was largely responsible for the basic research that went into this post. But I’m not going to give any of the money I earn from this post to the public school system. Also I won’t pay the same tax rate as you because of the Research & Development tax credit.

Bascially if you want blog posts, you have to pay. If you want me to provide full accounting details for all the money that went into this post, sorry, I won’t disclose it. You’ll have to just trust me.

Anyway you only have to pay $10. Your insurer is covering the rest.

This post just scratches at the surface of the complicated world of drug pricing. There are rebates, discounts, negotiations (or lack thereof), traffic-jammed routes from wallet to wallet, and a deliberate obfuscation of actual costs. We all value life-improving and lifesaving medications. But the runaway profits, the legal loop-holing, and lack of transparency are all symptoms of money trumping humanity. It seems like the only way to have a system to that puts humanity first is to create a new system.

Update! I just sold my blog to an investor who is going to increase the cost of this post to a kabilliontrillion dollars. He saw how few readers this post had and figured it must be for a rare disease.

Awesome read thanks Joy, that really spells it out. And if we drill down into the whole 'interlectual property' discussion Gilead probably owns about 5% of the effort to get this drug to market. Were there lessons learned from the development of NS3, NS4 and other NS5s which Gilead have used?? Absolutely! Okay so there have been breaches of previous research and interlectual property here? Well yes of course but no-one has put there hand up, because Gilead have all the dollars and power atm and besides where to busy working out how to jump onto the gravy train. And besides it wasn't Gilead it was the company that they bought that did all that devious stuff. Preaching to the converted I know. Question?

How many cures or breakthrough meds for cancer have been purchased by big pharma, of which never made it to market? Em

The article states that Gilead does hold a China patent for sofosbuvir. If that is the case, how can Mesochem make and sell its generic sofosbuvir for a bargain price?

My point exactly what do they really own? Besides the FDA? Em

Here is an article by Medicins Sans Frontieres that says exactly the opposite on China and sofosbuvir to the Reuters article linked in the post above:

www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/ch...is-c-drug-sofosbuvir

MSF says that: "Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has learned that the Chinese patent office has just denied Gilead Science’s request for a key patent on the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir."

Interesting that the MSF and Reuters articles were written on the same day, June 19.

I'd trust MSF over Reuters. Mesochem's website openly advertises their generic sofosbuvir - an easy target for Gilead legal action if they have the China patent. The evidence tells me Mesochem's sofosbuvir is legal and I suspect some deliberately planted misinformation may be involved in the posted Reuters article. Anything to discourage people from buying from a non-Gilead source.