[chimeracoder]

Gilead's R&D costs for Truvada as PrEP were literally almost zero. They paid none of the costs for actually conducting the trials.

Their only contribution was that they donated the actual pills used in the trials - in other words, the unit price of 30 pills per person for the duration of the trial.

PrEP has been pure, risk-free profit for Gilead.

[jayshua]

Gilead claims that is false and that they spent 1.1 billion on developing Truvada. https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/company-statements/gil...

[chimeracoder]

> Gilead claims that is false and that they spent 1.1 billion on developing Truvada. https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/company-statements/gil...

You are quoting a corporate press release that was written in response to an editorial criticizing Gilead, which was based on my colleagues' work.

This is a great example of how easy it is to fall for propaganda, because not a single thing in your link refutes what I said! They spent money developing Truvada as a treatment for HIV, then made that money back in record profits for nearly a decade. Only then did clinical trials for PrEP begin, and for those, Gilead donated only the production costs of Truvada (which are minimal). They did not spend any money in actually conducting the trials - which, as pharmaceutical companies are generally very quick to point out - is where most of the costs of bringing a drug to market are.

Gilead is claiming that, when it spent half a billion dollars to acquire a biotech company that went bankrupt, 100% of the money in that transaction should as "R&D related to Truvada". This is preposterous. Neither the SEC nor the IRS would endorse that accounting, which is why you're seeing it in a press release and not their 10-K.

That's a ridiculous claim even when you're talking about the development of Truvada, but that's not even the question at hand. The actual topic is how much was paid for the development of PrEP, which came nearly a decade later, and for which Gilead paid nothing but the per-unit costs of production.

[comex]

The $1.1 billion figure is for Truvada total, not for PrEP specifically. It’s perhaps notable that Gilead chose not to break that down, given that the original claim they were responding to was about PrEP specifically.

[chimeracoder]

> The $1.1 billion figure is for Truvada total, not for PrEP specifically. It’s perhaps notable that Gilead chose not to break that down, given that the original claim they were responding to was about PrEP specifically.

And even then it's a dishonest claim. Half of that $1.1 billion is the amount of money they paid to acquire another biotech company in a firesale. It's beyond disingenuous for them to claim all of that towards the amount they spent developing Truvada, since they received way more assets in that sale than just the patent for one drug.

[yieldcrv]

Although this is a discussion about costs

I just want to point out that the government has assumed the role of telling everyone how to take risks for its economy, and literally all you have to do is do that, successfully, and it will privilege your rewards by reducing risk on profits or reducing taxes

This is not controversial when you look at the state’s role in these outcomes