Dak
mentat
I haven't looked too much into this Corcept thing but I don't understand the conspiracy.
Smaller pharma companies find private investment quite frequently; while there is a lot of risk in a totally new start-up, Corcept was working with a drug that was already approved by the FDA, they apparently just use a somewhat higher dose and for a different treatment. Anecdotally, my advisor's post-doctoral advisor founded a pharma start-up for a completely new drug with a completely new mechanism of action, and despite the higher risk still managed to secure 9 figures of private investment prior to clinical approval. Drugs can be an extremely lucrative source of private investment because the government grants monopolies to the victors. Just looking at the Wikipedia article on Corcept, they charge substantially more than Danco does for the exact same drug. This is why Warren Buffet infamously only buys companies that provide him a monopoly.
I don't understand what Ford's employment has to do with anything. So she worked there from 2006-2012 as a statistician, beginning 8 years after Corcept's founding and 6 years after the drug was initially approved for abortion. It sounds like she was ultimately an employee rather than someone that was absolutely critical to the drug's development and success. She's listed as an author on six pages on the company site, though four of the six are for an unrelated drug, and for its effects on weight loss/gain. She probably was given some CORT stock options, which she may or may not still hold. How does any of that feed into abortion? From what I can find online, their monopoly on the drug's use to treat the rare disease ends next year; THAT'S the kind of thing CORT-holders are going to be concerned about, not whether or not an abortion ban will effect anything. In fact, if anything a ban of the drug for use in abortions should excite investors because it means Danco presumably changes business/shuts down and Corcept remains the sole producer of the drug in the USA.
Is 9 figures enough for 14 years? I'm not saying they couldn't, but Politifact doesn't address it. Also, like I said, changes now likely have no effect on her bank account. But we're talking a much more proximal connection than some vague memories from the 80s.
You know how poorly legislation can be written. Korlym could be at risk because it is the same drug and I don't think it's the only treatment option. It could be banned so as not to be used for "off label use". Not that I think that would happen anyway but the left is hysterical right now.
BO: Learn the difference between a conspiracy (involves a group, planning, etc) and the idea that individuals respond to incentives (psychological, financial, etc).
Last edited: