USA buys up world stock of remdesivir • Hacker News Board

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#41

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #37

bearjaws wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, I work in specialty pharmacies and Remdesivir is a complicated drug to produce. Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.

I have a noobish question. Looking at Remdesivir wiki page to try to get a feeling for why it's hard to make, their are some really odd chemicals used like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate Why is something like this, with its silicon and sulphur atoms as part of the backbone, needed? Why wouldn't the same but with a more typical fully-carbon backbone work? If it's too complex a question, ski…

[deleted]

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#42

Post by Mirioron » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #19

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

Countries can nationalize the patent in times of pandemics and produce it locally. But this drug is hard to make.

Even if this wasn't the case, a country could ignore the patent anyway and deal with the consequences later. A fine or sanctions by another country is preferable to a lot of dead citizens.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#43

Post by majewsky » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

walls wrote: post #27

ketzu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that supposed to make someone angry? Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments and still allow cheaper access for poorer nations. Still if they can't keep up with demand and there are many lifes at stake, we should probably legislate a compensated invalidation of such a patent.

> Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments The investment was made by the American people paying taxes. The profits will be privatized. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivi...

It's disingenious to frame like the public paid for the whole research. This articles talks about 70 million dollars in public money invested. Bringing a drug to market has a total R&D bill on the order of billions of dollars.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#44

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #31

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

Remdesivir was developed with public funds. Shouldn't the fact that the public shouldered the risk of development be factored into any of this?

https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/11082-investigational-c...

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#45

Post by kjaftaedi » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

What about India? Aren't they famous for having laws that ignore pharmaceutical patents?

One would think this would be a rather large opportunity for them.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#46

Post by lki876 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:40 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #34

bmmayer1 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

> The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.

There is nothing to stop that under the current model. It just isn't happening.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#47

Post by heyflyguy » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

mmm_grayons wrote: post #29

Sounds like the Guardian isn't happy its home country got out-bid. Did it expect that America would buy less of a potentially life-saving drug, effectively prioritizing the welfare of foreigners over her own? I'd expect any government to act in such a manner.

Imagine if there were excess stockpiles or capacity what the headline would have been! "Trump's fails to save US population with readily available medication!"

The media...just...suck...

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#48

Post by thomascgalvin » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #31

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

Gilead can still be paid for the treatments produced, but if they cannot create supply to meet demand during an unprecedented crisis, they should not be allowed to become the bottleneck.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#49

Post by spzb » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

kjaftaedi wrote: post #45

kstenerud wrote: post #2

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it,…

What about India? Aren't they famous for having laws that ignore pharmaceutical patents? One would think this would be a rather large opportunity for them.

Yes. It's mentioned near the end of the article.

Re: USA buys up world stock of remdesivir

#50

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

The drug that looked very promising for the last pandemic, yet turned out to have no benefit, and now looks very promising as a treatment for this pandemic...

Smells to me like someone in the remdesivir marketing department is doing very well... Are there any scientific studies that don't have vested interests and show it's a good treatment?