David Bianculli

In other words, the AIDS community was very active. They would protest if there were developments that they thought ran contrary to the interests of the AIDS community. So they were concerned about that. And he said to the investors at the time, we have a lot of room for growth now.

You know, essentially, that's the implication. You know, one of the executives at Celgene said at the time, the company had the impression that cancer patients would pay whatever it takes.

You know, essentially, that's the implication. You know, one of the executives at Celgene said at the time, the company had the impression that cancer patients would pay whatever it takes.

You know, essentially, that's the implication. You know, one of the executives at Celgene said at the time, the company had the impression that cancer patients would pay whatever it takes.

So the problem that Celgene had with the thalidomide patent is they did not have a patent for the active ingredient. And that's because thalidomide was such an old drug. It was discovered and developed in the 1950s by a German pharmaceutical company. And for drug makers, the active ingredient is a really important patent. So Celgene started to explore alternatives to thalidomide.

So the problem that Celgene had with the thalidomide patent is they did not have a patent for the active ingredient. And that's because thalidomide was such an old drug. It was discovered and developed in the 1950s by a German pharmaceutical company. And for drug makers, the active ingredient is a really important patent. So Celgene started to explore alternatives to thalidomide.

So the problem that Celgene had with the thalidomide patent is they did not have a patent for the active ingredient. And that's because thalidomide was such an old drug. It was discovered and developed in the 1950s by a German pharmaceutical company. And for drug makers, the active ingredient is a really important patent. So Celgene started to explore alternatives to thalidomide.

And there was two reasons for that, at least two. One is they hoped to find a drug that didn't cause birth defects and a drug that they could patent in a more influential way. So they started studying analogs of thalidomide. And this is just a slightly tweaked version of the parent compound. You know, you move an atom here, do this here in the chemical structure.

And there was two reasons for that, at least two. One is they hoped to find a drug that didn't cause birth defects and a drug that they could patent in a more influential way. So they started studying analogs of thalidomide. And this is just a slightly tweaked version of the parent compound. You know, you move an atom here, do this here in the chemical structure.

And there was two reasons for that, at least two. One is they hoped to find a drug that didn't cause birth defects and a drug that they could patent in a more influential way. So they started studying analogs of thalidomide. And this is just a slightly tweaked version of the parent compound. You know, you move an atom here, do this here in the chemical structure.

And that's how they ended up developing Revlimid.

And that's how they ended up developing Revlimid.

And that's how they ended up developing Revlimid.

So in 2005, they released the drug with a price of $55,000 a year. And that really surprised a lot of people, including the analysts who follow the company. They thought that it would be half as much as that. But the company did its own due diligence, and that was a price they thought that they could justify. And it ended up being a price that people paid.

So in 2005, they released the drug with a price of $55,000 a year. And that really surprised a lot of people, including the analysts who follow the company. They thought that it would be half as much as that. But the company did its own due diligence, and that was a price they thought that they could justify. And it ended up being a price that people paid.

So in 2005, they released the drug with a price of $55,000 a year. And that really surprised a lot of people, including the analysts who follow the company. They thought that it would be half as much as that. But the company did its own due diligence, and that was a price they thought that they could justify. And it ended up being a price that people paid.

So the cost to manufacture Revlimid is approximately 25 cents a capsule. And that was true at the start, and it was true through most of the history of the drug. And that's according to a Celgene official who testified in a court case.

So the cost to manufacture Revlimid is approximately 25 cents a capsule. And that was true at the start, and it was true through most of the history of the drug. And that's according to a Celgene official who testified in a court case.

So the cost to manufacture Revlimid is approximately 25 cents a capsule. And that was true at the start, and it was true through most of the history of the drug. And that's according to a Celgene official who testified in a court case.

No, I mean, there's certainly costs associated with developing the drug. And, you know, Celgene should be given credit for developing this drug. It's not easy to get FDA approval for a drug, and running clinical trials is hard business. You know, that being said, the company estimated about $800 million was spent to develop Revlimid.