Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!rhc@PacBell.COM
From: rhc@PacBell.COM (Robert Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: AZT
Message-ID: <29367@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 89 22:22:16 GMT
References: <29322@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: rhc@PacBell.COM (Robert Cohen)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco, CA
Lines: 20
Approved: aids@cs.ucla.edu
Archive-number: 1498

In article <29322@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Carr) writes:
->I keep hearing criticisms of the drug companies regarding the cost of AZT,  
->Pentamidine, or even some of the newer heart medicines.  Now my understanding  
->of the whole business is that the initial price is high because the drug  
->companies are attempting to recoup the cost of development and getting FDA  
->approval.  If this were not done, then we'd never see a new drug because no
->one can afford it.
... stuff deleted ...
-> 
->Is this truly the way it works with AZT, or is the company adding on?

I believe both Burroughs Welcome (AZT) and Lyphomed (pentamidine) have been
asked to make public their development costs.  Neither has done so.
AZT was suddenly reduced in price by 20% as a result of pressure.
What do you think is the answer to this question?  
-- 
  
Robert Cohen San Francisco, California 		rhc@PacBell.COM
{att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!rhc
work:  415-542-5517   home: 553-4033