> We know that these drugs cost roughly $10/dose to produce…

Can you link the source?

If it really is a 600% to 6000% markup then it does seem unlikely they would try to save a few dollars.

yes, most of the costs are A) development and B) relatively fixed costs of maintaining the manufacturing staff and infrastructure.

The marginal cost of an additional batch is relatively small in comparison.

Developing a cheaper to produce product, even if that was done off-book and you could keep it secret, would need some level of different production methods (different ingredients, different machines or something which makes it cheaper) and some amount of testing which just selling the original product doesn't require.

They do that in China and if you search the net a bit you can get 5mg of Semaglutide for $9 a bottle. Requires a little work as you have to add Bac water and inject yourself but it works great.

I think these calculations are wildly optimistic. As far as I can tell, they basically ignore the cost of development, labor, quality assurance, and regulatory.

It is like estimating the cost of a rocket based on the price of metal.

I think you've lost sight of what the discussion was about.

The person above was claiming they were using substandard versions of their medication in non-US markets where the retail cost is lower. I was pointing out that the manufacturing cost is so low, that doesn't make sense.

Your point now has nothing to do with the discussion being had.

I made a sibling comment agreeing with that point and expanding on why.

However, bad data is bad data. If I said the moon creates waves because it is made of cheese, I think it is completely legitimate to point out out that it is in fact not made of cheese.

Linking a paper with bizarre assumptions, regardless of what the title or abstract claims, simply can’t be productive or helpful.

It can only lower your credibility and the credibility of the associated arguments…

It is important to distinguish concepts here.

One concept is a single firm selling a branded product in multiple markets. Novo Nordisk sells at different prices in different markets, but the product is all of equal quality, and usually comes off of the same manufacturing line globally, or one of a few.

The other is usually generics made by entirely different companies. These can vary greatly in quality, from identical to deadly. It is a bit of a stereotype, but you usually see higher quality control and less fraud in US and western European manufacturing than say India, China, or SEA.

Having worked for US drug manufacturers, they deeply desire to move manufacturing to Asia where they can, but dont because of frequent quality issues when they do.

You were claiming non-US markets were:

> less pure ingredients, less stringent QC

Why don't you link to a paper or source showing that to be true? If you want to discuss credibility.

I didn’t claim that…?

You selectively quoted a chunk leaving out “could be reflecting”, implying a probability above 0.

So at most it can be said to imply there will always be a true probability greater than 0.

e.g. Someone could perish from a meteorite hitting them tomorrow. There will always be some non zero probability of that.

Wait until I tell you about the bootleg version I get get from China for $9 for 5mg bottle of Semaglutide. It lasts a month for me and works great. You have to mix it with Bac water yourself so there's a little prep and there isn't a plastic infector. Have to inject yourself with a syringe. These are 3rd party tested so there is some level of safety involved.