Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#191

Post by philipallstar »

devjab wrote: post #188
philipallstar wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well. General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.

Since we are pulling numbers out of our asses can you tell me what good advice that 95% of the people aren't capable of following is? It's great that our national health institutes advices us, but can you explain how the advice isn't completely useless in this particular context? To me it comes off as arrogant and rude.

I didn't say 95% of people aren't capable of following some advice. That would be bad advice. I'm saying this is good advice, because 95% of people can follow it.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#192

Post by axus »

valicord wrote: post #60
toomuchtodo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45638316

That's mainly for visitors. If you're a US resident, you can't just buy medicines abroad, unless of course we are talking about the "they won’t get caught" scenario.

The major legal question for generic Ozempic imports will be, did Novo Nordisk buy Trump coins or donate to the White House ballroom?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#193

Post by lproven »

chrisweekly wrote: post #133
vitorgrs wrote: post #31

In Brazil it will expire in July 2026. It's pretty relevant as it's kinda already announced they will put the generics on the public health care (SUS) for free... Which is big deal as an Ozempic shot costs almost the same as the minimum wage. This year they already did an analysis to include Ozempic, but it was denied, probably because of the cost difference... But they were trying on justice to extend the patent...

"same as the minimum wage" ... an hour's wage? a week? a month? annual?

Doesn't matter.

$(recurring dose of drug) ~= $(recurring income)

However much you need per unit time period, compared to how much you make in that time period.

The definition is independent of time.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#194

Post by xmcqdpt2 »

Marsymars wrote: post #110
aspenmayer wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t casting aspersions on NN, but jumping off from the allusion that was made by the user who I replied to. I don’t know what kind of sequence of events could lead to this outcome at NN, but perhaps they were hoist by their own petard. I’m reminded of the “money on the ground” joke involving two economists, which is semi-famous in these parts. To wit: > Economist 1: Look, there’s $20 on the ground! > Economist 2…

Even at large corps, it's fairly common to outsource IP work to law firms that specialize in IP - and if you're Danish, it might make sense to outsource to a Danish law firm that has its own worldwide IP contacts (rather than getting your own worldwide branch offices to handle local IP laws everywhere). One of said contacts might then pawn off the work onto a junior, who then has their assistant handle all communique…

That may be true if IP is not your core business but it is basically the core business of pharmaceutical companies. I don't speak from experience but it would seem surprising to me that any major pharma would outsource IP protection in a major market to contractors they can't sue for billions if they mess up.

It seems much more likely to me that they did it on purpose, as they claim to have.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#195

Post by BurningFrog »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #142

Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes". Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental screw job.

There are many different kinds of insulin now, and almost nobody uses the original version, because it's tricky to get timing and dosage right.

All with their own patent situation, of course.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#196

Post by foofoo12 »

mcny wrote: post #172
foofoo12 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible It doesn't take a very large company for this to happen. I've seen it in a sub 50 person company. There is a task to be done but no one can do it because everyone involved is waiting for someone else to do something. It's like a Mexican standoff.

It could be something as simple as answering the phone. Or checking if the default image for a product on an ecommerce website exists. If you answer the phone or write a quick script to check if the default image exists, now you sort of become the person who is "expected" to do this task. Boggles my mind.

Spot on. Often it's also thankless tasks whilst being foundation for the company to run. Someone has to answer the phone.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#197

Post by BurningFrog »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #41
glp1guide wrote: post #35

Not only that, there is a legitimate raft of companies lining up to make generics. There’s one wrinkle though, legally importing prescription drugs from Canada isn’t really allowed in the US/UK AFAIK. HIMS is probably feverishly figuring out how to do that right now. Shameless plug: https://glp1guide.substack.com/p/another-glp1-generic-launch... Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be upstaged by o…

> Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be upstaged by oral variants — orfoglipron for Eli Lilly and the Wegovy Pill for Novo. I believe that this gets a new patent, and will probably be a huge seller.

I suspect a lot of the anti-vaxx movement is subconsciously motivated by fear of needles.

So yeah, I expect the pill form to be a huge seller!

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#198

Post by j7ake »

cperciva wrote: post #149
nijuashi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying pharma companies are just holders of ‘expensive, time-limited IP’ is not only wrong, it’s offensive to those of us who actually do the science. We spend years designing, testing, and validating drugs, not scheming to hike prices. We’re not all Shkrelis out here.

I may be wrong, but aren't most drugs sold by large pharma companies actually developed elsewhere and then acquired?

A drug is almost never acquired that can then be put directly to patients and sold.

Large pharma makes strategic bets on several drugs, some initiated in house, others acquired, but they all just go through further optimization and testing before it is approved.

Huge RnD is required even if drug is “simply acquired”

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#199

Post by metaltyphoon »

loeg wrote: post #141
dghlsakjg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price in Canada is ~$175 USD month for name brand Ozempic where I am with no coupons, or other discounts. I see prices in the US around $800+/month. That is significantly cheaper than the US, and cheaper than other GLP-1 class drugs up here, arguably reasonable. Is the supposition that they would have been forced to charge even less? If so, why are their competitors who kept their patents not charging more? Count…

The US price for name brand is around $500/mo. More than $175, but not $800.

Only now at Costco. It used to be much higher

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#200

Post by philipallstar »

jbrnh wrote: post #186
philipallstar wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they'd be better off removing this section if "editorially independent" means "we will take things that even in their headline may not be true at all".

It's a blog. It references an interview. The post is also four month old. "In the Pipeline" is generally a fantastic resource on the pharma industry and chemistry news.

> It's a blog.

Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog" in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read. It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really look like one.

Post reply on HN