So instead of lowering their price, they just moved on to other treatments for different illnesses and will continue to get huge profits from their HCV treatment protocols. The thought of rape, pillage and plunder to the consumer is heart breaking. I and others believe that could be the case and really they could give a rats ass about the people that can’t afford it. It is simply legal murder for monetary gain with no laws broken, I find that repulsive and they should be held accountable as other pharma companies. But since that is a business decision, capital aggressive, it will never happen. I maybe off base but that’s how it looks to me.

I wonder if it will turn out to be (another) poor business decision?
I was taught that when investing, the smart money should be on a business that is passionate about and has a vision for the industry they are in. Looking at this latest strategy along with others they have implemented it seems to me that the Gilead board’s passion and vision is often inwardly directed toward their own best chance…….perhaps the market feels the same way?

One cannot trust any news from Gilead. Granted, their profits are being curtailed, but they can still
compete w/ the other major players in the HCV field even w/ a price drop.

Something else is going on that we are not privy to. R & D, even on a limited basis, is probably still
going on, IMO.

Maybe they are on to some major R&D cancer cure or world peace.

So far I’m hearing:

– They overstated their opportunities quarter on quarter.
– They underestimated the competition (and may now be looking for new fields where there will also be competitors)
– They are prepared to sit on their laurels.

This in a potential market of 180 million customers of which only 1-2% has been met so far.

Are these really people I would want to invest and grow my hard earned with?

I did splitdog, see my comment about “sit on their laurels”.
There are approx 175 million potential customers left and those success rates you quote are based on 12+ week treatments. From what I’m reading the competition are already developing medications that achieve those or better rates in considerably less time. If that eventuates and given the development times involved Gilead may well find it is yesterday’s news in the HCV field with their only effective response then to slash pricing of their current options to target the ‘economy’ end of the market……luckily they have a lot of room to do that.

(I’m proposing this purely from an investment perspective but would also note that Gilead have not been an R&D innovator in this field anyway. So far they have have been astute purchasers (Sofosbuvir) or developed “me too” products (Ledipasvir and Velpatasvir). Not sure of the provenance of Voxilaprevir, that could be their own novel work?)

Maybe Merck is on to a new approach for a cancer drug. Now maybe Gilead wants to pursue that with great speed.

So we are in agreement that they are not innovators? Nor a business run by people with passion and vision?

You are correct about the bell curve, my argument is that they are a one trick pony centred around a very astute purchase back in 2011. Sadly, they have then held the HCV patients of the world to ransom with that purchase of Sofosbuvir (which is a truly innovative drug).

Hi Gaj & Splitdog,

reading your posts, I see things are a little bit mixed… Perhaps we should look on the mission a company has on the market.

I struggle my head to find the proper English word for a person who wins a battle, collect the laurels, but is not winning the war (neither willing to fight that war)…. So, Gilead through a smart acquisition some years ago bought the company who invented Sofosbuvir and now holds the patent which is a cash machine.

Having drug combinations (SOF+LED, SOF+VEL) that are effective against HCV means that G. has won a battle [HCV can be defeated]. BUT they did not won the war against HCV….. To really win this war against the hepatitis C virus, you need to have “soldiers” (patients, doctors, etc) equipped with efficient weapons (e.g. Sofosbuvir based treatments) deployed on ALL battlefields where the enemy is (all over the world where HCV patients exists).

But, if you look at Gilead’s company description, you will see that winning the war against HCV is not their focus:

“Advancing Therapeutics, Improving Lives
Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. We strive to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. Gilead’s portfolio of products and pipeline of investigational drugs includes treatments for HIV/AIDS, liver diseases, cancer, inflammatory and respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular conditions.

Growing Worldwide Reach
Gilead was founded in 1987 in Foster City, California. Since then, we have grown to become one of the world’s largest biopharmaceutical companies, with 8,000 employees across six continents.”

So, in my English, this sounds like : I want to make “weapons” against life-threatening illnesses and let others fight the war (see “Strengh through partnerships”, especially that the drugs can be replicated. And because of the patent laws, one can add “…. when I made already enough money out of it”.
And this is a purely business (or better say profit based) approach, which does not necessarily require neither imply passion or vision to see the sick patients all over the world being cured. Just inventing an effective medicine, being proud of this, making money, then moving to a next medicine which should produce further money, and so on…

By compare, the mission of Natco company is “Making specialty medicines accessible to all”. Or Cipla’s goal “to ensure that no patient shall be denied access to high quality & affordable medicine and support.” and the list could continue.

By this compare one can better see the difference between Gilead and generic drugs manufacturers. We might even call it paradox. Also to be mentioned here is the questionable aspect related to the usage of public knowledge.And this is why we saw recently the Sofosbuvir patent challenge being made by Doctors of the World , I-Mak, etc. as the current settlements for protecting and stimulating R&D leads to such situations of paradox that in the end …. leaves people die.

P.S. I do agree that my view is excluding perhaps other relevant data about Gilead and that it may be biased, however not seeing the mass treatment of HCV patients being worldwide deployed … well I believe my opinion stands.

Cheers,
RHF