all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but then you have packaging costs, and distribution costs, and marketing costs, and shareholder dividends, and CEO bonuses, and AI integration, and lobbying costs....

    So really, we're practically losing money at a $450/month subscription.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Syphilis brought on Victorianism and centuries of sexual and societal repression. Antibiotics and birth control then led to the more liberal politics we saw in the 1960s and 70s. Likewise I'm convinced that AIDS had been a major contributor to the resurgence in conservativism in the last 40 years or so. My hope is that an end to HIV will help swing the pendulum back in the other direction.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Antibiotic resistant gonnohrea has entered the chat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    oh gods I hope not. gonnohrraea is..... scary stuff, especially late stage

    NEVER look up what that looks like (or any late stage STD/STI for that matter.....I only know due to my school district's.... interesting stance on sex education.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Drug companies chased this for decades. They’ll capitalize on that fact to “justify” ridiculous markup. They won’t do anything out of the kindness of their hearts. It’d be nice to live in a world where people and corporations did what was best for humanity. That’s not the world we occupy.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wouldn’t get your hopes up

    The trick is in asking who owns the patent. I suspect you're going to see a bunch of Chinese/Indian generics that cost pennies on the US dollar, because they see an economic benefit in people not having HIV that Americans can't grasp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Don't worry, the research was funded by taxpayers (most probably, or at least in part).

    The market price will be too.

    The thing in between however ...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    And will be made for as cheap as possible and sold for a magnitude more.

  • source
  • 66 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 79 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Pharma C-suite:

    that doesn’t sound very profitable

    I fucking wish I was kidding

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Except in the United States, where it will be $1500 a dose.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    But don't worry! If you're fortunate enough to have a job at a good company that pays well, then you can spend $300-$500 of your monthly paycheck to have an insurance company possibly cover up to 80% of the cost! Assuming you are in-network, picked the right plan, followed all the confusing steps to file a claim, and aren't disqualified by one of their dozens of contingencies.

    Land of the free babay!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 127 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh, it will be, but they'll mark it up 100,000%

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Nobody was saying it would be. The headline and article are about production costs at different scales, not prices for anyone buying it after that.

    Hill had calculated a generic price of $40 annually last year, but said the interest from generic manufacturers had warranted new analysis. This showed lenacapavir could be mass produced for $35 to $46 a year, if there was annual demand for 2m doses, falling to $25 at scaled up production of 5m to 10m doses each year.

    Oh wait, I missed a line where the article actually suggests this...

    Dr Hill’s research indicates that this gamechanging innovation could – within a year of launch – be produced and sold for just $25 per person per year.

    But you're right, they won't sell it for $0 of profit. It would be nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    i understand that if it costs $25 to make it then it needs to cost a bit more for supply chain, profits etc (regularly a 50% increase from factory and another 50% increase to retail), but i'll bet you a $500 bottle of HIV-ending drugs that this wont cost $56.25.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    $500 a bottle would be practically giving it away in the US. Most life sustaining meds or the rare cure are sold at unfathomable prices. One of my post-transplant anti rejection meds is $60,000 a month

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    At $25-$50/yr with low to no risk of getting HIV I would get the shot. Just like a flu or COVID shot.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Twice yearly shot? Yup, sign me up.

    As a medical provider, I'll probably be required to get it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    If this shot were to become common in the gay community, would that just leave the IV drug community to be the main transmitter of HIV? Could we potentially see HIV effectively eradicated?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't really know bit my supposition would be that eradication isn't really on the table presently.

    This is only a prophylactic. There are people right now with HIV who (excluding a "cure" emerging) will be potentially infectious in 40 or 50 years.

    In the short to medium term making this accessible to populations in areas with a high prevalence could avoid millions of infections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Well that'll never happen - not when the drug companies can sell $2000 a month or die medication to the inflicted for the rest of their lives.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They have to recoup their costs somehow. Their licence will expire after a while and other companies and make the product and therefore brigdown the price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's nutty this comment is downvoted to oblivion but "infinite breeding here we cum" idiot is getting upvotes.

    It's shit, but it's true. The company that researched this amazing thing needs to get paid.

    Maybe we could just give them $20b to forego their royalties, but then what if a better drug was developed next year which we wanted instead?

    Until someone solves the problem of funding medications, this will be the reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's getting downvoted to oblivion because it ignores many things, namely the fact that a lot of drug research worldwide is state-funded. There are many cases in which pharmaceutical companies use public funds for R&D, and then go on to sell the drug at steep prices, raking in immense profits.

    Meanwhile the public has to either cough up the bucks, or wait until the patent expires to have affordable options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    These are generalisations. It's facebook grandma reasoning.

    What elements of the R&D process for this medication were state funded and to what extent?

    Loads of industries receive support and incentives and grants from governments, they're not required to give their product away?

    There's no doubt that large components of the medical industry, and the pharmaceutical industry are unethical profiteers.

    It's also true that the research needs to be funded somehow.

    My point is, there is nuance here that most lemmy users just aren't interested in. It's not as simple as "pharma bad".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    naming your company fucking "Gilead" is some torment nexus-ass shit

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It looks like that's indeed the case, and they've been around long enough that Handmaid's probably wasn't that well-known at the time. Still, the irony is off the charts... have they considered changing their logo to the traditional four-armed rotationally-symmetric sacred Buddhist symbol? >.>

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    the company has been around for a long time, before the book was made famous, one of the first things i saw when applying to lab/biotech was gilead position for scientists. this was already 10 years ago.

    they even have transportaiton buses from our city to thier campuses, because its quite far away from a city if you work in biotech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 33 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Can we hurry up with this please. I want to cum buckets in my femboy slut. OK, thx, bye.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It costs you significantly leas than 25 bucks to not write shit like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Infinite breeding here I cum!

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It's disgusting that drug companies prioritise massive profits over human suffering

    They could still profit, just not the truly obscene profits they make, going into the pockets of people who are already rich

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    This take generally comes from looking at the profits of successful drug X, while being unaware of (or ignoring) all of the drugs that have millions upon millions put into their R&D, that never result in anything that can go to market.

    Overall profits will seem much higher than they actually are if you leave out that very-relevant data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I worked in health care

    I'm familiar

    I've heard all the arguments, and I know how much money is poured into drugs that don't go anywhere

    I also know how their shareholders and executives fare, and I stand behind my statement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    This is the drug I'm super hyped about. Even if it was $35, it would be life-changing for millions of people.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Shit, let's make it $100 per year so they can make lots of money.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    you’re thinking too small

    1000$/year baybeee!

    or rather, they’ll find the perfect balance of profitability, between how many people can afford it VS how much they’d pay for it

    the poors will die but that is a sacrifice they are enthusiastic to make

  • source
  • parent
  • Gilead

    Oh, so it's assured they will bleed people dry then, based on this company's track record.

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/globalnews@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Made for cheap, sold for thousands. Sounds like epi-pens

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    Actual price they will charge: One Million Dollars

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    "Oh, we can't do that. We have to make back R&D costs and turn a nice profit for like a decade before other companies are allowed to produce a generic version. We're literally going to capitalize on human suffering. Suck it."

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Narrator: It wasn't.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    We'll just take this to India annnnd it's $15

  • source