Forbes is on to my story, of this morning, now. . . .

I posted on it this morning; this afternoon, Forbes is on it:

It seems Merck may have some ulterior motives, here — Merck gets all of the profits from Cordaptive (due to be approved by FDA as early as next week), which will likely cannibalize some (more) of the Vytorin/Zetia market-share. . . .

In short, “Why share with Schering-Plough (on Vytorin/Zetia), when we have a new drug — Cordaptive — one that goes 100 percent to our own bottom line?”

That seems to be what Merck was wondering, softly, yesterday, and now aloud, to Forbes (off the record, of course).

Forbes is on to my story, of this morning, now. . . .

I posted on it this morning; this afternoon, Forbes is on it:

It seems Merck may have some ulterior motives, here — Merck gets all of the profits from Cordaptive (due to be approved by FDA as early as next week), which will likely cannibalize some (more) of the Vytorin/Zetia market-share. . . .

In short, “Why share with Schering-Plough (on Vytorin/Zetia), when we have a new drug — Cordaptive — one that goes 100 percent to our own bottom line?”

That seems to be what Merck was wondering, softly, yesterday, and now aloud, to Forbes (off the record, of course).

Forbes is on to my story, of this morning, now. . . .

I posted on it this morning; this afternoon, Forbes is on it:

It seems Merck may have some ulterior motives, here — Merck gets all of the profits from Cordaptive (due to be approved by FDA as early as next week), which will likely cannibalize some (more) of the Vytorin/Zetia market-share. . . .

In short, “Why share with Schering-Plough (on Vytorin/Zetia), when we have a new drug — Cordaptive — one that goes 100 percent to our own bottom line?”

That seems to be what Merck was wondering, softly, yesterday, and now aloud, to Forbes (off the record, of course).