No, it’s not just the stigma of this particular disease – all sorts of drug prices are being jacked up in the US.

The question that should be asked is why has the country constructed laws that make this kind of behaviour legally tolerable? Why is the profit motive given such freedom of action above any societal concerns?

Focussing on Gilead is a distraction from these much deeper and more serious issues. It’s fine that it has got your attention, but the same behaviour is being repeated in many other cases. Such companies, and the lawmakers who enable them, need to be looked at as a group and their behaviour analysed and reformed. That’s where the anger needs to be focussed.

This comment is in error on a number of levels. Firstly, most of my opinions are shared by most posters here, that is, that Gilead have been greedy and that FixHepC and its team are doing a fantastic job. I’m pretty sure that this is a common understanding. Secondly, there is nothing divisive at all about discussing the complexity of an issue rather than turning it into a black-and-white hate festival. From my point of view, the truly divisive comments are by people that express very aggressive hatred toward Gilead while at the same time buying that company’s products that have been produced under licence. Criticism here is one thing, but if one truly hates the company, then one shouldn’t be using its products.

I agree that politics is divided in the US, but the main reason for this is that voters are encouraged to think in simplified, childish terms that sees the difference between parties as choices between Good and Evil. And this is a result of shutting down debate when faced with an point of view you disagree with.

By considering both sides of the argument, I am encouraging readers to think about the issue, not to divide them. If they see my behaviour as being divisive, then maybe it is the education they received that needs to be looked at.

Screaming abuse, blocking ones ears, and calling for censorship is not useful behaviour in a complex and emotional debate..[/quote]

What I meant was, we have a loving, mutual, trusting relationship here with everybody helping everybody. We are all after the same thing. But when you start putting politics in, lots of other things come into play. People’s feelings can get hurt, and bonds can be broken fast. I have seen it countless times. I love to debate politics as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day, it would be counterproductive to our camaraderie and Hep C. Been there, done that. The internet is famous for 2 people liking the same 10 or 15 things in common, and all it takes is 1 thing to break that all up. It’s not worth it to me. But by all means, continue. As an Independent, I am for freedom as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. And that doesn’t include feelings. [/quote]

OK, I see where you’re coming from and will try to smooth the edges of my arguments in order not to provoke more than necessary.

However, I will also continue to maintain my position that hate mongering against Gilead is not a productive way to deal with this issue. Venting anger needs to be balanced with applied rationality if the truths of the matter are to be clarified. Mutual support is one thing, but it is better done supported by reason and fact than, how can I put this diplomatically, “emoting”.

Gilead did not factor in community outrage when pricing its goods in the US and this let them express their greed. After all, they are a business playing by the rules, not a charity.

But they changed their tunes and have responded in a number of other countries with a licensing compromise. You might even have bought their good through such channels. That they are playing hardball in the United States possibly tells us more about what sort of behaviour is permissible there, but I’m sure that intelligent lobbying will bring them around to a more acceptable pricing strategy in other countries (hopefully including the US).

Many good points, Greedfighter. That really says it all about the particular species of neoliberalism that the US is exporting and which minnows like Australia are keen to adopt. Let’s hope that this site keeps strong along with the heroes who are doing the sweating for the rest of us.

Hi!

But we’re not dealing with a car here. We are talking about a much more effective treatment than Peg-Interferon being marketed at levels that seem to be acceptable to the (dreadful) American medical/insurance system. The fact that they are profiteering…. well, I guess that’s why they are in business and we are sitting on the sidelines complaining.

That linked balance sheet is one part of a very complicated argument. As I’ve said before, I think Gilead are being greedy, but they are also doing a lot of the legwork and testing and so on. Their willingness to compromise for other countries maybe tells us more about the dire condition of the United States than the natural greed of a company who spotted and exploited a prime opportunity.

No reason to break any patents in any case. Gilled have been very responsive in their licensing deals for the generics and take, from what I’ve read, something like a 7% royalty – although I need to verify this.

The Australian agreement is interesting, also, with the price from Gilead being in the ballpark of $30,000 per treatment, which is only double what the Peg-interferon used to cost ($14,000–15,000). Some shrewd negotiating on both sides. And no reason for anyone here to complain, as the government will be footing the bill, which is an extraordinary thing!

So, in addition to Gilead, FixHepC, and the Australian Government, we really need to extend our thanks to the taxpayers of Australia, who will be underwriting this whole exercise.

This is all quite extraordinary!

Thanks for that. Interesting attached article (analysing 358 drug users in an HIV study that began in 1985 and then finding 19 of them who became infected with HCV. Just trying to imagine the logistics involved with paperwork and specimen collection and storage with that amount of people, especially considering that the paper itself was published in 1999.)

Please don’t speak for all of us.

I am very grateful to Michael Sofia (the inventor of Sofosbuvir and after whom the drug is named), to Gilead who risked 11 billion dollars to buy and produce it, and especially to FixHepC, who are helping many people to get access to this medicament.

I am taking the drug that Gilead make and so far, it seems to be working. I got it for a very good price from these guys here. Believe me, I am not going to complain about anyone who is part of this chain of cooperation that might be returning me to health.