Jesus fucking christ I just want to punch him in the face. Look at that shit.
Meet the guy behind the $750 AIDS drug - Sep. 22, 2015
Beats out Cecil the Lion killer...
Jesus fucking christ I just want to punch him in the face. Look at that shit.
I would not be surprised if he was shot dead, then shot 49 more times unnecessarily.
More like, they should just plan to give him AIDS in some way.
So of this drug isn't protected by patents why aren't other companies out they're making it?
Pussy bitch Draegan sold us out to MMORPG.com
Exodus underway to Rererolled - A Gaming Community
Oh and sorta fuck Tuco too.
That guy needs to have his ass kicked.
He said that he doesn't know what he will make the cost of the drug. Just that it won't be something as absurd as $700/pill.
This is one of those deals where I'd rather have Medicare select a manufacturer for necessary drugs and pay them cost plus 10% for a stated qty each year. I'd rather deal with the govt corrupt selection process and pay less than pay more and have it be a free market solution for health care needs.
Doesn't Medicare have to deal with the Drug Plan (Plan D)? Donut hole for the lose.
Price-Gouging Pharma CEO Under Investigation for Insider Trading and Fraud
It goes deeper than the pill thing. Dude founded a company than bankrupted it while he got millions from it. He's being sued for 65mil lol really hope he loses.
I don't get the hate. This guy is the most American American in the history of America. His robber baron ancestors are looking down with pride filled eyes.
That's really it. The interviews, responding on Twitter and Reddit, etc are what made everyone hate this psychopath. If he did this and had never shown his rat-face, everyone would forget about it in 2 days. Now they'll be talking about it for at least 4 days.
I think he should run for congress.
I kind of like the guy.
oderint dum metuant
This isn't even about importing drugs (which should also not be a big deal between the US, Canada, and the EU -- but is opposed because the same drugs can be sold at a much higher price in the US), just about the right to sell them.
So government regulation allowing this fuckery to happen?
Don't hate on this guy for being successful, it's unAmerican. Even if demand for his (otherwise $14) pill is driven by a life and death situation. No matter how much supply there is, sky's the limit on the price as long as people are willing (dieing) to pay for it. What a business savvy American he is! We should all strive to live the dream like this guy.
New FDA Draft Guidance on REMS and Bioequivalence Studies: Does New Procedure Secure ANDA Applicants The Right to Obtain Samples? | FDA Law Update has more info on the legal issue and some of the failed attempts to prohibit this behavior.
This guy figured out that since AIDS patients need the drug, it could be sold for a lot more. So he bought the rights to that specific formulation and jacked up the price. Other companies can also sell the drug, but it gives him a few years to cash in while they develop their own versions and get them approved.
He isn't the only person doing it in the industry... he just added 1 too many zeroes. If you raised it 500% he would have gotten away with it.Sanders and Cummings also wrote to the CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals last month to protest dramatic price increases for two heart drugs, Isuprel and Nitropress. Valeant raised the price for Isuprel more than 500% -- from $215.00 to $1,300 a vial -- and boosted the price of Nitropress by more than 200% -- from $257 to $800 a vial -- shortly after buying the drugs from Marathon Pharmaceuticals in February. Valeant is the only company that sells the medications, which can be life saving.
My only solace in this nonsense is that fairly soon AIs will be developing the medications instead of pharma companies. It's to bad the GoogleCancer drug was delayed after the iChemo sales cornered the market.
You wouldn't need a body for me to convinct this asshole of murder.
I don't get why people like this aren't brought to trial more. I don't need evidence to convict someone this easy to hate, just opportunity.
That's dangerous logic, though.
1.) The regulatory wall is severe, as others have said, you need to prove your generic is as good as the original. Even if you know all the ingredients, the actual formulation can be difficult (I don't think that's the case here though, this drug is so old how its made is also well known.)...However, equipment that would pass muster for the FDA? Is extremely expensive, we're easily talking into the millions of dollars for just the manufacturing ability. In addition to that, and here is the important thing--the FDA "Abbreviated New Drug Application" for generics, can take 1-2 years, and that is even with a perfect set up. Just like most things with the government, it is a slow process, even if everything works correctly. (So even if someone does decide to try? This guy gets 1-2 years of gouging, with no chance AT ALL of competition. Even IF someone was crazy enough to try.)
1B.) The Pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. is closed distribution, meaning, from what I understand, there must be a kind of chain of custody from them, to the pharmacy, to your hands. This is to prevent foreign "sub standard" generics from appearing in pharmacies (Which in some cases is good, in others it is thinly veiled protectionism). But this allows this asshole to see exactly who his customers are--and companies like this vigorously check to make sure no company is buying it for research purposes. (And they can deny the sale too, if a company is--because, from what I read, much like the Pharmacy, due to the closed distribution system they can prevent any sale they want.)....So you can't actually get the pills, to test them, to make a generic.
(And companies really are jerk offs in other ways too...Recently companies have begun making very small alterations to old patents, in order to get new ones, then discontinuing their old drugs before their patent expires, thereby not allowing anyone to purchase the old drug to make a generic. One pill currently on the market got a new patent for changing the delivery system, from tablet to capsule, another got one for changing the color of the pill and adding a flavor to it. (I'll have to look this up to make sure, but there have been some ridiculous ones).)
2.) Its an Orphan drug. Which is to say it is only prescribed for a very tiny market. Since the drug has no other approved uses in the U.S. except for the small parasite market? It's only customers are around 2k people. This means a company needs to spend millions to make a generic, wait years, and possibly never achieve it--only to have a market so tiny that they really would have to charge an absorbent amount to turn a profit. And the thing of it is? Since their competition has such an enormous supply chain advantage; they can easily drop the medication price back down to pennies on the dollar, locking the competition who invested out of the market (Which is especially bad, because now the company trying to bring this drug out not only can't sell it, but lost a lot of capital in the process.)
Last edited by Lithose; 09-25-2015 at 10:24 AM.
Sounds like government regulation is causing a problem to me.
Assholes are gonna be assholes, you shouldnt be surprised about that.
Well drugs certainly need regulation but things certainly need to be fixed. Pretty sure Pharma does not want that though.
Something like this -should- be the impetus for market oversight. It won't be, but it should be.
I'd like to see torches and pitch forks over this kind of shit.
Not to be all GA about it, but honestly, you want this kind of shit to be more subtle -- someone needs to shoot this guy in the face.
He'll probably drop it to 70 bucks or something and talk about what a swell guy he is and how his company provides a valuable community service.
Shotgun to the face, only real way to fix it.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The fact that a market exists where this can be done, is the govt's fault. It's within the govt's power to fix it. Expecting this guy to "be a decent human being" is fine, but wrong. The regulatory framework that created this opportunity should also be used to close this and other opportunities like it.
Well, there's a divide between market regulation and production regulation and quality/efficacy assurance.
It seems to me, not being a law-man, that he's gaming the production and quality regulations in order to exploit the absence of a market regulation.
And I agree wholeheartedly about free market pharma/health care. Elective services, free market your heart out. This is America after all. And there is a place for that. We don't need someone in the state house deciding how much LASIK should cost. That's a waste of everyone's time. But non-elective services and goods? Those should be at least thought of as a communal good. We don't need Capteen Capitalism over here deciding that flu vaccines should cost $2,000 an ounce.
Last edited by Iannis; 09-25-2015 at 04:42 PM.
Big Pharma needs to bury this guy. Literally or figuratively it doesn't matter. He's steppin on their dick.
Those regulations stop you from getting sawdust in pill form.
Not even kidding. The Chinese got caught putting sheetrock into OTC meds and supplements about 10 years ago and it was a pretty big deal. This dude here, he wouldn't be above it. At all.
You WANT the kinds of production and quality regulations that are in place. You want to know that when a bottle is labeled ibuprofin that is exactly what it is. The problem being expressed here in this price hike is a problem of inefficient regulation rather than over regulation.
Yea not having a you can't "price gouge" law on the books isn't what I could call inefficient regulation.
This guy is able to do this for the sole reason that the cost/time to bring another generic to the market isn't worth it from a business stand point.
Assoles like this guy will always exist. 99 times out of a hundred its government regulation or red tape that allows them to be assholes and get away with shitty behaviour like this.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 09-25-2015 at 05:38 PM.
It's due to government regulation that generics exist at all, without it drug companies would be like fucking Disney and keep the rights to their intellectual property basically forever. Drugs would NEVER come down in price, because the drug formula would be considered their intellectual property and they'd NEVER have to let anyone else make a cheap version. Gilead would get to price gouge Sovaldi for $100,000 indefinitely, rather than just for 9-11 years.
I own the IP to grilled cheese sandwiches
Heroes of the Storm Hotsdogs
Fact is considerable amount of regulation and laws and oversight has zero to do with safety and protecting consumers. What they are really there for is to protect the establishment, serve as barriers of entry.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 09-25-2015 at 08:37 PM.
I don't think letting uncle Jimmy cook up aids medicine and sell it as such unimpeded is the answer here.
Uncle Jimmy? I get my stuff from a guy named Heisenberg.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 09-25-2015 at 08:55 PM.
If the govt had no regulations at all, monopolies would form rather quickly in all markets, leading to price gouging. There's a necessary balance of free market opportunity and regulations for the interest of both the consumer and health of markets as a whole. If a regulation (such as this) allows one company to corner the market and gouge consumers, then the regulations need to be changed.
I didn't say disband everything and let companies run hog wild.
This is a drug that's out of patent. I'm sure pfizer or someone could quickly concoct a pull quite easily. Getting it through all the regulatory hurdles and red tape? Not so fast I bet.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 09-25-2015 at 09:34 PM.
Health care is a market like any other. Much like Apple gets to set the price for the latest iPhone, so do pharmaceutical companies with their drugs. If Apple charged $5,000 for an iPhone, people would switch to Android (well, not everyone). That mostly works with drugs, too: it's pretty rare that there's only one drug that can treat a particular disease (often it's just slightly more effective) and after some years, cheaper generics hit the market. Plus, drugs that are priced too highly may simply not be covered by insurers: so there's a clear upper bound of what can be charged.
A disease that affects very few people is inevitably going to be expensive. A drug, once developed, first has to be patented, then it has to go through medical trials. As it goes through trials, the patent protection clock already starts ticking. At the end of the day, that leaves about 10 years before a generic hits the market. On average, it costs $1bn to bring a new drug to market. So if it doesn't generate at least $100m in net revenue per year, they're making a loss despite having a medically successful product. If the condition affects 5,000 people, you have to charge each of them $20k/year just to break even.
There are ways around this, like extending patent protection for treatments for rare conditions. But the point is to show that it's not necessarily unfettered greed that leads to high drug prices.
No company is going to go through trials simultaneously, because that's way too costly if it doesn't work. So you first go through one process, hopefully learn that drug X works and you have 10 years of patent protection left. Then you start the certification process in other large markets. That can easily cut another 3-5 years out of the time, leaving you with 5-7 years to make money in those markets.
Last edited by Soriak; 09-25-2015 at 09:35 PM.
Fun theory: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Lots of people are pissed about CEO Martin Shkreli buying the HIV drug patent and raising the price of Daraprim from $13 to $750 overnight, some 5000%, as though his goal is to price-gouge HIV patients for profit.
Guys, think bigger.
This guy is a Wall Street trader. If you've never taken a finance class, you may not know this, but there is more than one way to make money on stocks: you can make money on stocks when prices go up by buying low and selling high, but you can also make money on stocks when prices go down.
The second way is called shorting stocks. Basically, you borrow stocks from someone who already owns them and then resell them (even though you don't own them). Then, you hope that the price goes down before you have to repay on your debt of borrowed shares. If the price indeed goes down, you buy more stocks at the new, lower price, use those to return the ones you borrowed, then pocket the price difference, less fees. It's a form of speculation, and it involves buying stocks on margin, which is part of what caused the stock market crash in 1929 that led us into the Great Depression.
It is illegal to manipulate the price of a stock from the inside so that it goes down in such a way that you can profit off of it like this. In fact part of the plot of the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies" used this concept. However, it's NOT illegal to piss a ton of people off by raising the price of an HIV drug 5000%, draw a lot of political attention to the fact that a company is gouging poor HIV patients, and bait politicians like Hillary Clinton into tweeting about it, causing the company's stock to crash.
Guys, Martin Shkreli is making millions and millions and millions of dollars—the LOWER biotech stocks go. In fact he tweeted about it in advance. He said on August 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM via Twitter that VTL's stock would take a dive within weeks and recommended shorting it:
"$VTL is a short. I think it goes down 80% in the next few weeks."
(His tweets are currently private, so you won't be able to see this one if you go to his Twitter feed)
Oh, and would you look at that (see attached pic). On Friday, August 21, it went from $17.68 to $3.65 on Monday, August 24, and has remained under $4 per share since then. In fact, biotech stocks across the board dropped about 5%!
I think that the reason he did this with an HIV drug specifically is that an HIV drug would get the most media attention. This particular drug is, in fact, pretty rarely used to treat HIV. It's more commonly used to prevent malaria, in fact. But the more outrageous the price-gouging seems, both in degree and in heartlessness considering the disease it treats, the more media attention it will get. This causes more politicians to speak out against it, causing it to get even MORE media attention, and making Shkreli even MORE money.
What happens when Canada Corp has a disastrously bad run and ships bad meds across national boundaries? We're not talking anything malicious.
There's a lot of upside to having the sorts of treaty that you're mentioning, it's mostly upside, and I think we should have more open borders in this market. But when you're dealing with tort... and international tort at that... there are some very real potential hazards as well.
If hospitals can charge $30 for one aspirin. I don't see why this guy can't charge whatever he wants for his pills. Its all fucked up either way. US healthcare is all about profits. He's just doing what they all do.
Pharmacies are almost as bad in this mess. They don't advertise prices but medicare.gov has a database that can be used to determine the base price pharmacies are charging for a drug.
Look at Lipitor Prices and Lipitor Coupons - GoodRx and the est retail price. Lipitor is being sold from $40 to $240 base price. The prices hardly follow what you would expect in a free market. Most people don't realize the price discrepancy for drugs between pharmacies. 300% in many cases. For young people that get a script maybe once every few years its not a big deal. It really starts to be a problem for people with regular prescriptions though. It may not even phase them when they have their co-pay and don't see the full cost at first until they enter a coverage gap and probably don't question the new price the pharmacy gives them vs shopping around for the best price.
1) They're integral to hedging risks for large financial services institutions. Some places banned short-selling during the financial crisis and banks there would simply freeze up completely. The lack of short-selling prevented them from even pricing some of their products, meant they suddenly were exposed to much larger risk of losses, etc. Very, very bad idea.
2) The point of the stock market is to reflect the best belief on prices. That means some people have to be able to say "hey, this is undervalued -- I want to buy!" and some people will have to be able to go the other way. Otherwise, you may well see more bubbles: less money than can counter a significant overvaluation of a company.
If the guy did anything of the sort that was claimed, or any of his friends did, the SEC will be all over their asses. They're pretty good at their job and some dude tweeting about how he's going to crash a stock will make their work pretty easy.
Shorts are incredibly healthy for markets. First, no sane organization that wants to stay in business long participates in wide spread naked short selling. Second, shorts provide a huge amount of liquidity on both the up swings and the down swings. Third, shorts actually start many rallies they cover and can extend rallies when they are wrong and you get a squeeze.
Regardless of all that, there are tons of ways to make money in down or up markets. Shorting is one of the more risky and gets portrayed a bunch but much more common are covered options. Especially now as the market trades and you can sell options to play the ups and down on securities you own locking in profits of the stock and also collecting the premiums on the contracts you sell as the security goes up or down depending on what your strategy is. Most options end out of the money, its actually a really solid way to augment returns but does take some know how to implement properly.
I dont see how you label something as "free market" when government owns 45% of the market.
this is a potentially life saving, emergency use drug for those who need it. This is akin to someone developing a new, highly improved defibrillator for cardiac arrest, putting it out there in the market, and then charging 300x the cost to restock it after use. There should be some body of laws/regulation that limits exorbitant price alterations on established, life saving emergent use medications, particularly when the drug price is not impacted by 'normal' market forces (rarity of use + overhead to produce nullifies competition)
In our lab we have an automated stainer which does a silver stain invented in 1928. We buy reagent packs from Roche for this stainer which contain 100ml of 1% silver nitrate. They cost $900 each. That's right, $900/gram for silver nitrate. Why do we pay this? Well, they didn't charge that much when we bought the stainer. They just waited until all the doctors got used to the machine's staining intensity and then jacked up the price, knowing the doctors would hate to have to relearn the nuances of another machine. Also, getting another stainer validated would cost well over $1 million.
A co worker of mine recently broke her chair and needs a new one. Its taking awhile because our chairs need to be certified to not absorb lab chemicals over time, which means there are few vendors and as such a new office chair costs $8000.
We have a half hour of downtime at the beginning of every shift, because we have to wait for our water baths to heat our water up to the right temperature. The lab assistants can not fill our water baths for us before we arrive, as since they are not certified they can't interact with the equipment, not even filling something with water. We used to have a microwave to heat our water fast, but they never replaced it after it broke. They didn't replace it because a new microwave would have to be validated, as in they'd have to run control tissue through water heated by the microwave and have a doctor examine the results to ensure that this microwave doesn't heat the water in a way that would affect the results, which means it would cost about $50,000 to buy a new microwave.
I'll see if I can dig up the pictures I have of the tissue cassette holders that we use to load the tissue processor. They're basically just bent and molded chicken wire, but cost $800 each.
Seriously, one time on a slow day I compared our lab's price list to Sigma-Aldrich's website for reagent prices, and the lowest markup I found on the whole thing was like 5,000%. 20,000% markups on common reagents like denatured alcohol were not uncommon.
Also he was the top bidder for that wu tang, once upon a time in shaolin album. hopefully he is thrown in jail and that thing is sold at auction :P
Hopefully after he is done with prison and left penniless the only work he can get is as a janitor like his parents and needing that pill he can no longer afford.
Once you double down in that first lie, all the rest just flow from the need to keep that first lie intact.
Because we only stand for being owned and used for profit by our own. Rererolled.org
This is terrible! The man's trying to help people with AIDS!
And this is why most rich people don't shit in the swimming pool and instead throw money into it. Rot in held tardo.
Yea, I'm guessing if he had bought the aids drug and gave it out for free he could have continued raping other random less known disease treatment drugs for money indefinitely and never be investigated or arrested.
It's called a PR scam you rube, you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)