SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives
SPY 680.28-0.5%4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
Brian Sullivan
Katelew
Winfastorlose
To: Winfastorlose who wrote (144906)5/5/2020 6:19:01 PM
From: codfish233 Recommendations   of 219527
 
I know all about Ribavirin, used it for years in treating hep C. When combined with interferon, it was a toxic combination to most patients, but not terribly toxic to the virus (overall, we had about a 20% cure rate).

The next line of treatments, made initially by Gilead, got the cure rate north of 90%, with almost no side effects, and an all oral regimen. The only drawback was the cost (which was always passed on to a 3rd party, the insurance company). Gilead priced their drug to cost exactly what it cost to CURE the patient with Interferon/Ribavirin, factoring in that you had to treat 5 patients (sometimes retreating them) to get one cure. And those patients frequently had complications requiring other medications and/or hospitalizations (including quite a few who got the complications, but not the cure.

The last couple years before the Gilead treatment came out, we all knew it was coming, and the docs in our group hardly started anyone on tho old treatment, we just told em to hold on, and wait for the new stuff. It was the right move
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext