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

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.