I Propose Renaming Goldman Sachs to “Sirius Cybernetics Corporation”

Because the latest bit of analysis on healthcare from these guys, basically says that, there is no money on curing disease, we need to work to make everything chronic.

I believe the phrase, “A bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,” should apply here:

One-shot cures for diseases are not great for business—more specifically, they’re bad for longterm profits—Goldman Sachs analysts noted in an April 10 report for biotech clients, first reported by CNBC.

The investment banks’ report, titled “The Genome Revolution,” asks clients the touchy question: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The answer may be “no,” according to follow-up information provided.

Analyst Salveen Richter and colleagues laid it out:

The potential to deliver “one shot cures” is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies… While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company’s hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year.

I want the guillotine concession on these rat-f%$#s.

I’d be a wealthy man.


  1. Quasit says:

    How long before they take the obvious next step: CREATING chronic conditions? Preferably universal ones? Monsanto pointed the way with their Terminator gene.

    Oh my GOD! What a brilliant idea! A chronic condition which makes the patient infertile unless they pay for a temporary (but fabulously expensive) treatment. I call dibs on that one!

    Better still: a variable treatment. The more you pay, the less damaged your progeny are. That way, poor people would become easier and easier to con as generations pass – and their generations would pass more quickly, since damaged progeny would die younger!

Leave a Reply