Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZephyrBlu | Hacker News Reader

I don't know much about the economics of drugs, but I've seen this type of statement a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008

View on HN

I don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day.

I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"), but it does not make sense from Merck's point of view.

> In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing)

That's a valid argument if marketing was the primary decision maker in drug development. But that is not the case, at this very moment Merck is likely developing several potential drugs for Covid in parallel, and there is no guarantee any of them will make it to market, costing Merck millions (probably billions) in development cost.

I'm no proponent of big pharma, and it's possible executives at Merck convened and decided to bet it all on drug X and at the same time not to profit from ivermectin. I think it's very unlikely, because it doesn't make sense.

It only makes sense in a comic world where everything is black and white and the motive of the bad guy solves the mystery.

I'm very confused that Bret, who I respect, is falling for this simplistic ad-hominem argument.

The profit margin on Ivermectin is likely nothing, while the margin on Merck's upcoming drug is likely very high.

because the newer treatment will likely cost more money

it's not like riverblindness is a first-world problem you can charge people more money for treating

Reply on news.ycombinator.com