re: New 52 Week Lows For GILD, How Is This Not A Screaming Buy?

quote:

---

I dont like overpriced drugs as much as anyone but agree with omada anyways with gilead from what I've read the $84,000 they often times get much less but overall it sounds expensive but when compared to someone getting a liver transplant is actually much cheaper for everyone in the long run.

---

Add to it the massive amount of money spend on R&R on drugs that often result in failure. people fail to see that.

hey I dont find those drugs egregious at all, my dad is suffering from pulmonary fibrosis and he's on a lung transplant list and will probably be doing it within the next 24 months, once his pf test drops below a certain level and his doctor told me the total cost would be $2M+ now my dads on medicare bc hes almost 70 so im not sure the out of pocket costs but there is no other option and I mean $2M is wild considering the guy donating lungs will be dead and gets none of it, but hey I cant complain whats plan B, death? I think $84,000 to be cured from a debilitating ailment like hep c is not bad to prevent death or transplant.

i agree, its funny all the rich foreigners though, whenever something major arises, theyre getting treated in the united states lol they love their country but not when it comes to their health

FWIW i dont know if any of you are chartists, but GILD hit 77.63 today as the low of the day which was the exact low last time, thus a perfect double bottom. Could be the end

what are QALY limits exactly?

finally gild green in some red tape, like i mentioned earlier in the thread clean double bottom off 77.63

Long time holder in GILD and even with increased competition in the HCV space they are the dominant player by far. Plus they just approved the pan genotype, so it removes the genotype testing barrier in other countries.

Main pressure is lack of guidance and the plateau of revenue due to the fact that most HCV payers are under some sort of government coverage. These payers only have so much to spend a year, really no more to grow.

HIV franchise still growing well though and I have faith in management especially for HBV and NASH. They are the undisputed leaders in liver diseases.

quote:

---

Not trying to blast you, but I think greed is often used in these cases as an oversimplified (and typically wrong) characterization of the cause of complex problems in business. As a result of doing so, it demonizes others while creating moral superiority for those who don't bother diving into the problem to figure out the real issue so that a real solution can be found. Instead, it turns into "government, regulate these people because they're bad," even if the story doesn't match facts. Is greed responsible for some issues? Yes, of course, but many times it isn't.

---

No argument that it is a complex issue. My point is simply as I stated. When the government decided to take over health care, they need to also reign in the waste and fraud. See Mylan, Valeant, etc. There is no justification for buying a patent for an established drug and raising the price how ever many hundred or even thousand percent. That's bullshite.

quote:

---

A drug, by itself, is usually cheap to make. But the research that went into it, the FDA approval process that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the funds necessary for future research and trials, and the costs associated with most projects failing anywhere on the approval chain are all included in drug prices.

---

Again, I completely understand there needs to be a reward for the risk taken. Even though plenty of risk is often mitigated by the government and stockholders. Biopharm has taken crony capitalism to new heights in recent years, and its only going to get worse if we don't see some sort of regulations put into place.

quote:

---

So that's why patents on drugs are so vital: to recover all that cost and profit enough to keep inventing. And when the patents end, generics come out, usually from other companies, because they don't bear said costs.

---

Right. But, then what is the justification to continue to raise the price after the initial investment has been recouped? Perhaps the beginning of some regulation could be to split the developmental/research companies from the producers. Similar to splitting the banks from investment to retail (Glass-Steagall). I don't know if this would work, but there needs to be something done to reign in these costs.

The defenders of the biotech community often state that lack of greed will stifle innovation, but when did the scientist all the sudden become wall street brokers? Why does the CEO of of speculative biotech company need to be paid $20-30 million a year? Crony capitalism is the problem here, not a lack of funding and science.

quote:

---

Right. But, then what is the justification to continue to raise the price after the initial investment has been recouped? Perhaps the beginning of some regulation could be to split the developmental/research companies from the producers.

---

What do you mean by development/research companies and producers?

quote:

---

finally gild green in some red tape, like i mentioned earlier in the thread clean double bottom off 77.63

---

Not so clean anymore. Management appears lost and content with what they have. So, no growth and diminishing returns in what they have. Wall Street hates that.

nothing is a screaming buy right now. we are at the edge of a cliff.