Comment by MichaelZuo
Comment by MichaelZuo 18 hours ago
> We know that these drugs cost roughly $10/dose to produce…
Can you link the source?
If it really is a 600% to 6000% markup then it does seem unlikely they would try to save a few dollars.
Comment by MichaelZuo 18 hours ago
> We know that these drugs cost roughly $10/dose to produce…
Can you link the source?
If it really is a 600% to 6000% markup then it does seem unlikely they would try to save a few dollars.
Developing a cheaper to produce product, even if that was done off-book and you could keep it secret, would need some level of different production methods (different ingredients, different machines or something which makes it cheaper) and some amount of testing which just selling the original product doesn't require.
I think these calculations are wildly optimistic. As far as I can tell, they basically ignore the cost of development, labor, quality assurance, and regulatory.
It is like estimating the cost of a rocket based on the price of metal.
I think you've lost sight of what the discussion was about.
The person above was claiming they were using substandard versions of their medication in non-US markets where the retail cost is lower. I was pointing out that the manufacturing cost is so low, that doesn't make sense.
Your point now has nothing to do with the discussion being had.
Linking a paper with bizarre assumptions, regardless of what the title or abstract claims, simply can’t be productive or helpful.
It can only lower your credibility and the credibility of the associated arguments…
I made a sibling comment agreeing with that point and expanding on why.
However, bad data is bad data. If I said the moon creates waves because it is made of cheese, I think it is completely legitimate to point out out that it is in fact not made of cheese.
yes, most of the costs are A) development and B) relatively fixed costs of maintaining the manufacturing staff and infrastructure.
The marginal cost of an additional batch is relatively small in comparison.