Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Your ex-gf's story seems a bit off. First, Gilead didn't license it to Roche until 1996 and it was approved in 1999. About the time it takes to conduct clinical trials and get FDA approval - no apparent delay.

The major Asian bird flu epidemic was ~2005, after it was already brought to market.

Tamiflu isn't a "cure", the effects are pretty limited, but it's used because we have nothing else.

Tamiflu has been wildly successful product for Roche, why would they not develop it and instead try to treat "symptoms"?

Tamiflu is not in short supply by any means, Roche produces huge stockpiles for the US gov't and the shelf life is pretty long. There is plenty to go around.

To summarize, your ex-gf's story sounds like a could-be-true story (for those who don't know better) that plays to the typical stereotypes for "big pharma".

I'll also add that the cost to treat someone with Tamiflu before it went generic was ~$100. Pretty reasonable considering what drug costs are like in general.

First, the CDC recommends Tamiflu:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-cli...

Second, in 2003 Roche upped production. So yes they sat on it. SARS was in 2003 - and it takes 12 months to produce. What Roche was producing pre 2002 would prove or disprove the story, but I can't find this information anywhere -- I would gamble not much.

"It's pointless to look at ways for outsiders to produce Tamiflu, Roche's Reddy says. He notes that Roche can meet demand expectations faster than anyone else because it is familiar with the challenging production process. To meet current orders, Roche has quadrupled production capacity since 2003,"

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i35/8335tamiflu.html

Your answer does not address the criticisms in the comment you are replying to. If the Asian bird flu epidemic was in 2005 there is no correlation to an increase in production in 2003. Could reduced production in the first 4 years of the drug's approved existence be explained by a challenging production process?

He did actually, but he used the medical term SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) [1] in place of "Asian bird flu". However, they refer to the same thing, and SARS does appear to have only been a major problem from late-2002 to mid-2003, a timeline that is consistent with his claims.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

Ah, I understand the argument a bit better then, but I don't think that's really a valid substitute. Avian flu is H5N1, whereas as that article describes SARS is caused by SARS coronavirus. I suppose oseltamivir may be used to treat both, since it's an antiviral, but I'm not able to find much online indicating that. Regardless, I think the medically accurate term to substitute for "Asian bird flu epidemic" would be "the H5N1 epidemic in Asia."

Roche upped production so that's your claim that they "sat on it"?

Production is dependent on demand, which is dependent on how bad the flu season is and how many are treated with Tamiflu. Otherwise a company produces a ton of product that just expires.

Predicting what the next flu season will be like is hard as hell. I haven't seen anyone do a decent job of it. Even Google tried and failed miserably.

I don't see that as "sitting on it". Also, the drug was already approved. Why would Roche not just sell more Tamiflu, it's easy money? What benefit is there to "sitting on it"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com