| Mark Probert 2005-09-28, 9:42 am |
| PeterB wrote:
Big snip to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome.
>
> If Merck's returns weren't viable, they wouldn't continue to
> manufacture vaccine.
Many manufacturers have dropped out of the vaccine business for exactly
that reason. Merck probably stays in it for reasons other than profit.
Their financials look good, so they are not hurting. If that changes,
watch how fast they drop vaccines.
Besides, the question is whether vaccine
> manufacture is driven primarily by the need for profits, which of
> course they are.
I reject the premise of that statement. In some cases, especially where
the profit margin is small, some companies may even stay in the business
because they feel an obligation to the overall medical community. I know
you will disagree, as I do not picture you as seeing that a
pharmaceutical company can have any degree of altruism.
So, whether the object of the drug makers is to
> maintain returns they are happy with, or to boost them further, isn't
> relevant to the distribution of vaccine despite the absence of
> randomized, controlled, and long-term studies proving they work.
You seem to be hung up on one particular model. You have had this
explained to you elsewhere, and I will defer to that.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> But they haven't.
See above wrt pharmaceutical altruism.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nice anecdotal observations; but not relevant.
Actually, quite relevant. Businesses drop income sources when the profit
margin goes down.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's only true when the product with greater overhead cannabolizes
> the other, which happens rarely.
No it is not. It is true regardless of the relationship. Have you ever
studied economics or business? Do you own your own business? If not,
then you should spend some time learning how businesses operate.
As for vaccines, nothing else claims
> to do what they do, consequently those revenues can't be offset. If
> indeed vaccine is becoming a liability for the drug makers on the basis
> of weak margins, it only shows they have painted themselves into a
> corner by failing to provide adequate forensic virology supporting
> adoption of vaccine to the public.
Pure non sequitur.
>
> Only when a product is cannabolizing another, otherwise your
> incremental revenue generators are positive to cash flow, if nothing
> else.
No really, if you need the cash flow to finance something that will have
a higher margin.
|