Company Acquires Rights To Drug Used By AIDS/Cancer Patients; Immediately Raises Per Pill Price From Under $14 To $750

from the because-fuck-you,-that's-why dept

Mon, Sep 21st 2015 8:03am — Tim Cushing

When pharmaceutical companies defend outrageously-priced medicines, they often claim these massive profit margins are there to help them recoup the money dumped into research and development. But that has nothing to do with the high prices. R&D costs are consistently lower than companies portray them. The real reason for exorbitant drug prices is a monopoly granted by patents, which lock out all competitors for years. And when the patent nears expiration, pharma companies extend their monopoly by doing questionable things -- like testing high-powered, opiate-based painkillers on children -- just to extend the patent protection for another few months.

None of that, however, explains this: (h/t to Techdirt reader pixelpusher220)

Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill last month, shortly after purchasing the rights to the drug from Impax Laboratories. Turing has exclusive rights to market Daraprim (pyrimethamine), on the market since 1953.

Daraprim fights toxoplasmosis, the second most common food-borne disease, which can easily infect people whose immune systems have been weakened by AIDS, chemotherapy or even pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

In this case, any research and marketing costs have long since been recouped (or at least amortized). The patents behind the drug -- all granted between 1951 and 1954 -- should be dead. Conveniently for Turing (and other rights holders before it), no company is offering a generic version.

Every time the drug has changed hands (and it's done it more than once), the price has gone up. But no other company has increased the price quite as much as Turing Pharmaceuticals has. Perhaps that's because Turing spent a significant amount of money to acquire an exclusive marketing license, but with none of the attendant patent exclusivity.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPXL) today announced that it has sold its U.S. rights to the Daraprim brand to Turing Pharmaceuticals AG for approximately $55 million.

Turing, of course, realizes this price jump -- which puts one month's supply in the new vehicle range ($45-50,000) at minimum -- is going to be tough on those expected to pay for it, but claims to have support in place to help absorb some of the ridiculous increase.

A Turing spokesman, Craig Rothenberg, said the company is working with hospitals and providers to get every patient covered. This includes free-of-charge options for uninsured patients and co-pay assistance programs.

This sounds like exemplary altruism in the face of a presumably unavoidable [hah] increase in price. But a closer look at what Turing is actually doing shows the company will be forcing patients to choose from all of two options:

For inpatient procurement, institutions can no longer order from their general wholesaler. Instead, they must set up an account with the Daraprim Direct program. Once enrolled, orders may be placed with the company until 6 pm Monday through Friday and will be delivered the next business weekday, because there is no weekend delivery at this time.

For outpatient procurement, patients can no longer obtain the medication from their community pharmacy. All prescriptions must be transmitted to a single dispensing pharmacy: Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. Upon insurance verification and co-pay collection, the prescription will be mailed to the patient’s home, and most prescriptions can be mailed overnight.

This presents a problem for hospitals. Although the drug is low-use (it combats the effects of toxoplasmosis -- something that can cause serious issues for those with weakened immune systems, like cancer/HIV patients), it still is needed often enough that the two access routes just aren't enough.

My institution recently encountered a difficult scenario in which pyrimethamine was attempted to be obtained through the Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy. The patient in question was currently homeless, and therefore did not have a home or address to which the medication could be delivered. Additionally, the manufacturer did not yet have a system in place to address the situation.

This could have been extremely problematic, but fortunately, my institution is affiliated with a Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy and contracted to provide bedside delivery to patients prior to discharge. The patient was able to receive the pyrimethamine as an inpatient.

Turing, of course, defends the increased price by claiming the exorbitant profit margin will result in increased R&D. But let's take a closer look at what its spokesman is actually saying.

Rothenberg defended Daraprim's price, saying that the company will use the money it makes from sales to further research treatments for toxoplasmosis.

Translation: this money will be dumped into finding another variation to patent, thus locking out potential competitors and allowing Turing to continue charging whatever it wants for the medication.

They also plan to invest in marketing and education tools to make people more aware of the disease.

Translation: we will market the hell out of this new drug.

This sort of thing isn't exclusive to Turing. It's standard MO for all pharmaceutical companies. Rather than engage in meaningful competition, these companies are awarded lengthy monopolies on drugs and treatments by the US government. Turing is no different than Amedra -- part of the holding company acquired by Turing along with the Daraprim rights. But when Amedra acquired the rights from GlaxoSmithKline, it somehow managed to keep its price hike to a couple of dollars, rather than several hundred.

This huge price jump has more to do with the man running Turing, Martin Shkreli. Shkreli doesn't have a background in pharmaceuticals, but he does know how to run a hedge fund. And he's used this expertise to become highly-unpopular very quickly.

Since founding Turing last year, Shkreli has taken a page from what made Retrophin a high-profile--and controversial--player among small biotech companies. Retrophin's stated goal was ferreting out value in biopharma by acquiring assets with potential in rare and neglected diseases, a process that can mean acquiring an underused drug and jacking up its cost to take advantage of rare disease pricing.

Here's one of the moves Shkreli made as the head of Retrophin.

In September 2014 Retrophin acquired the rights to thiola, a drug used to treat the rare disease cystinuria. It was with Shkreli as CEO that Retrophin introduced a 20-fold price increase for Thiola, despite no additional research and development costs incurred by obtaining these rights.

Turing is basically Retrophin 2.0, or more accurately, Shkreli being Shkreli. Shkreli may have still been helming Retrophin at this point, had his own company not ousted him. In August, his former company also sued him, alleging financial impropriety.

It appears that Shkreli is a bit too comfortable operating in gray areas. The market-related shadiness alleged in the lawsuit appears to be just part of Shkreli's everyday business affairs.

In an uncommon move, Shkreli himself led the Series A financing, and Turing isn't naming any of its other backers, calling them "preeminent institutional equity investors" and leaving it at that. In a filing with the SEC last week, Turing counted 34 individual participants in its funding round but reported raising just $62.7 million.

This reported total of the funding round didn't match the claimed total ($90 million). Shkreli had an answer for the missing funding. And that answer was "Shut up."

A spokesman for the company declined to explain the $27.3 million difference, and further questions about the company's financials were met with a terse email from Shkreli asking FierceBiotech not to contact Turing again.

However, if you do feel like discussing the 5000% increase in Daraprim's price, feel free to take your questions to Shkreli himself, who is surprisingly accessible on Twitter. Just know ahead of time that you're too stupid to understand complicated business stuff, you don't represent anyone worth talking to, "everyone else is doing it," and shut up.

The unasked question has its answer: why did Turning flip the switch on a 5000% price increase? Because it can. And it's not just the people being prescribed Daraprim that will eat the cost. It will be every customer of every health insurer that covers the rest of the cost of these prescriptions. These additional expenses will eventually result in higher health insurance premiums. And while Turing is offering to help out those with little to no insurance, these costs -- whether they're absorbed by health care institutions or the government itself -- will be passed on to the general public as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: daraprim, drug prices, generics, martin shkreli, monopoly pricing, patents, pharma, pharmaceutical pricing
Companies: turing pharmaceuticals

113 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 7:22am

When corpses are just numbers
To pharma companies, a massive number of sick people is not a tragedy, or something unfortunate, it's an opportunity. To those twisted individuals running such companies, the more sick people around the better, and if someone can't afford the medicine they need to survive, oh well, there's always someone else.

When the business you're in has a link between sickness and profits, such that the more of the previous the higher the latter, it's hardly surprising that you'd end up with some seriously sociopaths individuals who care more about profits than lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:24am
  
  It's their new slogan
  Turing Pharmaceuticals: Your Money or Your Life.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: It's their new slogan
    Oh if only pharma companies were that honest...
    
    Really, they're telling people 'pay up or die, and you're going to pay dearly because you have no choice', the least they could do is be honest about it. 'We care more about boosting profits than saving lives', one simple line, enough with the laughable 'Oh we'd love to make the drugs affordable, but we just can't you know, those commercials aren't going to pay for themselves.'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ped_EcSing, 29 Sep 2015 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: It's their new slogan
    Correction:
    Turing Pharmaceuticals: Your Money AND Yaour Life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John85851 (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re: When corpses are just numbers
  I forget which TV show or movie had a pharm executive as a bad guy, but the point was basically this: pharm companies don't want to cure customers (I mean "patients") since this will end the income stream. Instead, pharm companies sell drugs to counter the side effects and get people legally hooked.
  
  And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there's probably a reason why pharm companies haven't found a cure for cancer or AIDS.
  
  Now, granted, the show was a fictional drama, but it seems a little too accurate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re: When corpses are just numbers
    So we need a little girl to die due to lack of this drug and her gave shown with her clutch doll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re: When corpses are just numbers
    You might sound like a conspiracy theorist if the companies weren't openly bragging about this to their shareholders. When you find a drug that turns cancer from a death sentence into a chronic condition, where you just take a pill every day (for the rest of your life!) and it keeps the cancer in check, that's the holy grail of for-profit pharmaceutical research.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:47pm
  
  Re: When corpses are just numbers
  Generics companies are our saviour in Canada, goddamn. But still, they don't invent anything. We have a massive need for new antibiotics but that means tons of research for years to cure infections that last 5-10 days max. Even the CDC is extremely concerned about this. Let's hope the assholes use the profits to some sort of really needed project like that (yeah right).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Xanatos, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:23am

Remember kids, patents kill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  Except, there are NO patents involved this time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave Xanatos, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dammit! I saw "acquired the rights" and "drug" and I completely missed the not patented part. So, is something preventing a generic company from coming in and offering it? And what are the rights that were acquired? Is this now trademark law that is killing people?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They have the right to market this particular brand of the drug, which happens to be the ONLY brand of the drug.
      
      Nothing is preventing generics from stepping in, except that there's not enough of a market to make it worthwhile. The insanely high price WOULD be a reason, except they know that the price will plummet once there's competition.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and so companies can sell things at high prices and still make a profit without patents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:25am

"But no other company has increased the price quite as much as Turing Pharmaceuticals has."

Tim is actually wrong on this part. I seem to recall that a few years ago, another drug company increased prices on a prescription drug by more than 5,000%, and it was something that was even covered by Techdirt. I don't remember the name of the drug, but it was covered here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  The line was talking about this particular drug, not prescription drugs in general. It's entirely possible that another company has even more completely screwed people over by jacking the price up astronomically, but in this case, this last price-hike is the highest in this drug's history.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  Tim was talking about the price of Duraprim.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  not quite in the same exact topic, but the same vein:
  
  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/New-Hepatitis-C-drug-99-cheaper-in-India/articleshow/3 9719323.cms
  
  from the article: The blockbuster hepatitis C drug will cost about $900 (around Rs 54,000) in India for a 12-week course of treatment. That would be a fraction of the $84,000 (over Rs 50 lakh) price tag for the same treatment in US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  not quite in the same exact topic, but the same vein:
  
  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/New-Hepatitis-C-drug-99-cheaper-in-India/articleshow/3 9719323.cms
  
  from the article: The blockbuster hepatitis C drug will cost about $900 (around Rs 54,000) in India for a 12-week course of treatment. That would be a fraction of the $84,000 (over Rs 50 lakh) price tag for the same treatment in US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:42am
  
  Re:
  The drug's name was Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate) and it happened in 2011. I actually went bonkers when I first read it.
  
  Here, have a go at the whole saga:
  https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=makena
  
  That's what a mix of patents & monopoly regulation will do.
  
  I just DDG'd Martin Shkreli and this is in the top 3 links:
  http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/us-attorney-investigate-short-seller-mart in-shkreli
  
  We REALLY NEED a f'ing body of public domain/GPL or otherwise Open Source drugs dammit...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:50pm
  
  Re:
  South Park were right. Magic Johnson. The cure for AIDS is very large amounts of cash in a concentrated amount.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:34am

Hopefully
Hopefully the blatant greed on this company for this drug will entice a manufacture to create a generic version of this drug and undercut this company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:58am
  
  Re: Hopefully
  When $700/pill means you're still undercutting them, I'd say the chances are indeed high that someone will do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Hopefully
    The question becomes do they have a monopoly because their specific brand is the only FDA approved brand? Have other companies attempted to get FDA approval of other generic brands? Has the FDA denied them? If so is the FDA (or are FDA employees) involved in back door dealings (ie: a conspiracy to scam the public)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: Hopefully
  Brazil simply ignored the patents on AIDS medicine exactly because the pharmaceutic industries refused to charge sane prices. So, yeah, this may take a very interesting turn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Hopefully
    Technically, they did not ignore patents. They issued compulsory licenses for those patents, which is permitted Brazilian laws and rules established under the WTO for situations where there is a health emergency or if the pharmaceutical industry uses abusive pricing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hopefully
      True, not quite the same effect as ignoring.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thrudd, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:39am

Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of manufacturing (sometimes) marketing and distribution of drugs that might be effective in treating a malady.

None are in the business of cures since those affect the bottom line and the private islands in the caribean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, hence the lack of research in new antibiotics. Which is scary. I bet they have some shelved somewhere secretly only to release in case of a large epidemic, where the government will have to intervene and buy large doses of it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:41am

Why no generics?
If all the relevant patents have been expired for 40 years or more, why are there no generics available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: Why no generics?
  Could it be that the drug's low cost kept generic makers out of the market? Maybe now they'll have an incentive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dan (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re: Why no generics?
    That's kind of what I was thinking/wondering. If that's the case, the problem should self-correct fairly quickly, I'd think.
    
    Tim tries to paint this as an issue with drug patents, but I can't see how they're relevant to this case. The patents, he says, are 60+ years old, and patents at that time didn't last more than 17 years from issue. It would thus follow that this drug isn't under patent any more (and hasn't been for a good long time). Thus, whatever the problem is here, it isn't likely to be patents.
    
    In most industries, this would appear to be an antitrust violation. Having a monopoly, by itself, isn't illegal (after all, the government can't force another company to compete with you if it doesn't want to), but taking undue advantage of that monopoly is. If (as it appears) nothing has changed but a desire to jack up prices, that would probably qualify. Given the regulations on pharmaceuticals, though, I'm not sure if or how the traditional antitrust rules apply to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why no generics?
      It's not a patent issue.
      
      When patents become a huge issue, not all that long ago, more than 50% of all prescriptions were written for patented drugs. Now only about 10% of all prescriptions are written for patented drugs, a number which has continued to drop and appears to be headed toward 5%. So the problem is now becoming cost effectiveness of production. Some drugs have such low annual usage that only one company is producing certain drugs, a very effective monopoly, leading to abuses far worse than were ever even contemplated by companies holding patents.
      
      I am amused by the irony that drugs prices can escalate beyond all sanity in the absence of patents, especially when so many people kept pushing for the abolishment of patents.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wendy Cockcroft, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why no generics?
        Gentlemen, please...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why no generics?
        We know about evergreening, but do you have any information on how or whether it applies in this case?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why no generics?
        On a 60-year-old drug? I think not. Simply stated, as the attached article indicates, the problem is few companies producing certain generic drugs.
        
        Still hilarious. So many people thought the abolition of patents would reduce all drug prices. Wrong.
        
        http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/fury-over-drug-price-spikes-rising-but-increases-arent- new/ar-AAeH6G5?li=AA4Zjn
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re: Why no generics?
    The problem is low demand. Very few people take the drug, which likely only requires a batch per year. However, the high price may induce others to enter the market.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why no generics?
      "The problem is low demand. Very few people take the drug," in the US... Add a few preservatives (they do that anyway) and export them to other countries.
      
      I'm pretty sure that selling a 20$ pill for 5$ in india beats having unsold inventory.
      
      As for the rest maybe, just maybe it's about f'ing time government did its job properly.
      
      Add incentives for companies who sell reasonably priced drugs to poor countries for example.
      
      But wait, that too is ... you guessed it ... everyone's favorite word ... SOCIALISM!!! So of course it will never happen.
      
      After all it's not like those countries are (thanks to, in no small part, the USA) effectively banned by various trade agreements from producing their own cheaper generics.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jraama, 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: Why no generics?
  I would not count on generic competition anytime soon, and possible not at all. The number of patients is low so volume would also be low.
  
  To put a generic on the market, you still need to make demo batches and conduct some amount of testing on those batches. And you still need to file an approval application with the FDA, wait for them to complete their review, and then have your site inspected. These things are more or less a fixed cost, and they take a few years to complete.
  
  By the time a new entrant is in the market and ready to sell a generic, Turing will have recouped their costs and will be able to complete on price. So there is very little incentive for another company to get in the market. It would be great for the patient population, but ultimately a loss for the generic maker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thrudd, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:45am

a totally anti American solution
All pharmaceutical patents go to the state since the research was funded and overcharged to the taxpayer in the first place.

Have the drug companies compete on price quality and support.

That would kill a lot of the big pharmaceutical companies because they have outsourced all their manufacturing and laboratory support services thanks to FDA loosening regulations regarding subcontracting by big American pharmaceutical companies in the past decade or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:07am
  
  Re: a totally anti American solution
  Socialist much? Do you think more government is the solution? The government in this case, is the problem by granting patents. Reduce or eliminate patents and problem is solved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:24am
    
    Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
    I don't think more government is the solution but I do think that government funded research should mean a government controlled patent. The cost for the drug should then be kept at the cost to manufacture the drug.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
      I think government funded research should mean no patent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
        If we lived in a society that you couldn't patent already existing technology, I would agree. While technically I know that you aren't supposed to be able to get a patent in prior technology, it takes a lot of money and lawyers to fight bad patents. The best option is to patent it and then open the patent up so that it could be used by others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
        In principle, I agree with both of you. Open source is the way to go here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
      >>> All pharmaceutical patents go to the state since ...
      >> Socialist much? ... Reduce or eliminate patents and problem is solved.
      > ... government funded research should mean a government controlled patent.
      
      You ... DO realize, don't you, that patents are not at issue in this case? It's a captive market for a scarce commodity.
      
      This case is more like the market for VT100-compatible terminals. The only reason you'd use them is if a) it were critical to your need, and b) there wasn't an adequate alternative. Say, missile launch controls....
      
      And even then, you'd look for alternatives because the cost is unreasonably high. Modern display software. Alternative drugs to treat toxoplasmosis.
      
      And as the article points out, those solutions have their own problems: the original wasn't patent controlled, but the replacement might be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:50pm
      
      Why is more government not the solution.
      I mean I get it. There's a lot of crap and corruption in our government...
      
      ...but when the choice is government meat inspection or no meat inspection, we choose government meat inspection.
      
      ...When the choice is a government highway system or no highway system, we choose a government highway system.
      
      Every market needs to be regulated or it's going to pull bullshit exactly like Turing is doing, and that's why we need government in the first place, to stop that stuff, or at least slow it down.
      
      And yes, we have problems when government gets to big, but I think that's a problem to be solved.
      
      Because having less government means having less cool stuff. And it means leaving the jackasses to prey on the weak unchecked.
      
      So yeah. More government, and more socialism isn't unamerican, it's progress. It's recognizing that unregulated capitalism has led us to $750 pills for HIV patients.
      
      Feel free to work out another solution if you don't want further regulations, but the alternative to doing something real and immediate is $750 pills for HIV patients.
      
      ...oh and Shkreli splashing around in his riches like Scrooge McDuck.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Why is more government not the solution.
        They don't care... THEY'RE NOT HIV PATIENTS...
        Don't you know that HIV is a GAY disease, well either that or they had sex out of wedlock.
        
        BTW that was sarcasm.
        
        I have absolutely nothing against consensual sex between adults.
        
        Then again I also believe that as a society we should help prop each other throughout the mistakes of life.
        
        Surely a McJob isn't worth the same amount as a top lawyer, but that person shouldn't have to starve or otherwise die of EASILY (and CHEAPLY) CURABLE diseases.
        
        But again, any kind of such program will be seen by many US people as... the dreaded ghost of socialism.
        
        BTW that was also sarcasm (not really).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:24pm
    
    Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
    Playing the Socialist card is ridiculous.
    
    Try some rational thought:
    What is the price for society and the sick to keep big pharma in profits?
    Why spend taxes to feed a corporate welfare addiction?
    
    One more thing to consider:
    One day you or someone you love may be in that hospital bed having the doctor tell you they'd like to help but unfortunately the insurance won't cover the cost...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
      Thank you. Socialists are widely believes to breathe oxygen. Must we give that up because "THEY" do it?
      
      We need to let go of the dog whistle politics; the sooner, the better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Uriel-238 (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 10:51am
        
        Demagogy
        Destroying democratic process since 5 BCE.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:57pm
    
    Re: Re: a totally anti American solution
    Oversight is bad? That's what the CIA says to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
    
    Government is a neutral thing. How it acts is all that matters in so many things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thrudd, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:45am

a totally anti American solution
All pharmaceutical patents go to the state since the research was funded and overcharged to the taxpayer in the first place.

Have the drug companies compete on price quality and support.

That would kill a lot of the big pharmaceutical companies because they have outsourced all their manufacturing and laboratory support services thanks to FDA loosening regulations regarding subcontracting by big American pharmaceutical companies in the past decade or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: a totally anti American solution
  And this comment relates to the article how?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:27am

This is a call out to the Federal Trade Commission: it's time to do your job.

I'd also nudge the Department of Justice as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:56am

This isn't greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies. They are simply trying to make their money back. What everyone is forgetting is that the people don't pay these drug prices, its the health insurance policies.

It's no different than buying a comic book for $5 then turning around and reselling it for $50 when the value increases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  Except nobody dies from not having a comic book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  This isn't greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies.
  
  Yes it is. This company, anyway.
  
  They are simply trying to make their money back.
  
  The company jacking up the price is not the one who developed the drug - which was developed over 60 years ago and has long since paid for its cost of development.
  
  What everyone is forgetting is that the people don't pay these drug prices, its the health insurance policies.
  
  Which means that we ALL pay for it, via increased premiums.
  
  It's no different than buying a comic book for $5 then turning around and reselling it for $50 when the value increases.
  
  When someone says they'll die if they don't get a copy of Superman #1, they aren't speaking literally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I get the feeling they might get payment in the form of lead from people dying of cancer or relatives of people that died to cancer due to not being able to afford this treatment any longer.
    
    Grief makes people do irrational things
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:33am
  
  Re:
  "They are simply trying to make their money back."
  
  This drug was on the market 60 years ago. They already made their money back, many times over.
  
  Tauring isn't a pharmaceutical company (at least not in this instance). It's an acquisition and licensing company. It basically bought the trademark name the drug is sold under, and only in the US.
  
  Next development in this story: people will start importing this drug from other countries where Tauring doesn't have the monopoly, and Tauring will sic ICE or some other government agency for-hire on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  So who do you think pays for these health insurance policies? You do, through your premiums. Or for Medicare/Medicaid, you do through your FICA taxes. But it's you that pays for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  "What everyone is forgetting is that the people don't pay these drug prices, its the health insurance policies."
  
  And who pays for those insurance policies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  What everyone is forgetting is that the people don't pay these drug prices, its the health insurance policies.
  
  And where do the health insurance policies get their money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:18am

money for nothing
An old trick is to find out if a particularly expensive drug is also used in veterinary medicine, especially for horses and livestock, in which case the human dose should be dirt-cheap when it's labeled and sold for livestock use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:04pm
  
  Re: money for nothing
  Like the 80% of antibiotics being used in farmstock?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:34am

And this is what happens when you have a for-profit medical system. Remove the profit incentive and everything changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 10:44am

A little background
A little background into the subject might help.

The drug in question Daraprim has never had more than about 15k total prescriptions in the US. Assuming a 1 pill per day regime, it means about 5 million pills a year. User count before the price increase was sitting at about 8000, according to figures I could find online, or about 2 million pills.

It is also a drug that is slightly harder to make, store, and distribute as it is light and air sensitive and can quickly degrade.

It is in fact a brand name generic drug, one that is sufficiently complex to make that few seem to have an interest, especially considering the size of the marketplace.

The price increase does potentially offer up a chance for another company to come into the marketplace. However, short term that is very unlikely, it can take a year or more to get FDA approval to produce even a generic drug, especially one of this nature. Someone will likely try to move into the marketplace, but as this is a small market generic, it's likely they will still charges in the hundreds per pill to make it worth getting into the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 11:56am
  
  "...Short term that is very unlikely..."
  ...it can take a year or more to get FDA approval to produce even a generic drug
  
  ...And in the meantime, people die.
  
  Capitalism only works when market forces are able to instantly respond to changes, which only happens in a narrow spectrum of commodities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: A little background
  "A little background into the subject might help."
  
  That did help. It helped make me even angrier at this malfunctioning system that is causing real people real harm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re: A little background
  User count before the price increase was sitting at about 8000, according to figures I could find online, or about 2 million pills.
  
  ...which means, assuming that prescription volume doesn't change much (and assuming the new price actually sticks), that a $55M investment is going to yield a return of $1.5B/year. That's $1.5B of revenue, not profit, but supposing they were barely breaking even at $14/pill (which they weren't; they were making a profit, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling it), that works out to $30M/year in production costs. Negligible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 21 Sep 2015 @ 11:14am

@ #3 a correction
you said,"Turing Pharmaceuticals: Your Money or Your Life."

it should read

"Turing Pharmaceuticals: Your Money or AND Life."

WHAT A DISGUSTING EVIL IMMORAL DRUG SYSTEM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:20pm

I am not sure why everyone is up in arms about this price increase. Sure $750 per pill is crazy, but the real travesty is that nobody was complaining at $14 per pill.

A simple calculation of the stated numbers has someone needing 2-3 pills per day putting the old price at about $1000 per MONTH for a drug that I'm sure has a marginal cost to manufacture somewhere less than a penny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig Welch (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: Marginal price
  What is the relevance of the marginal manufacturing cost?
  
  Far be it from me to defend price-gouging drug manufacturers, but there is far more than that one cost that has to be recovered. Even though they lie about development costs, there are development costs to be recouped, as well as the cost of marketing, insurance, legals, and many more.
  
  It's simplistic in the extreme to say that a drug should only cost a few pennies because that's all it costs to make it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Manabi (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Marginal price
    The medicine cost only $1 a pill several years ago (article isn't clear on how long ago that was), so it's pretty obvious the cost to manufacture here isn't very high. Certainly nowhere near $13 a pill, and not even in the same ballpark as $750 a pill. I won't claim every generic should cost pennies per pill, but this generic shouldn't be more than $1-$2 a pill.
    
    This company also has zero development costs to recoup, the medicine has been around since 1953. The guy says he's doing this to fund R&D into a new drug for the disease, but there's actually no demand or need for one. So that's probably a lie to try to justify the insane price gouging.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re:
  "..the real travesty is that nobody was complaining at $14 per pill."
  
  Yep:
  
  "Only a few years ago, Daraprim cost only about $1 a tablet, but the drug’s price rose sharply after CorePharma acquired it."
  
  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hedge-funder-buys-rights-to-drug-used-by-aids-p atients-and-raises-price-from-1350-to-750-per-pill-10511690.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:34pm

Low-cost option
I think more attention needs to be given to the "low cost" option. If the company is willing to charge $750 per pill, they're not going to give away free samples out of the goodness of their heart. Someone, somewhere, will be paying for this- if it's not the patient, it'll be the health insurance company... who will then pass this cost on to *all* their patients.

Remember that insurance companies are in business to make money also, and their options for covering expenses like this are more limited since they can't legally drop people for having an expensive sickness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 12:35pm

With an ethical as twisted as this ... what guarantees that these companies are not going to create and disseminate new diseases in pursuit of profit?
Oh, wait ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 3:10pm

These Corporate Criminals are getting a tad bit to comfortable , public lynchings anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 21 Sep 2015 @ 3:33pm

"Rothenberg defended Daraprim's price, saying that the company will use the money it makes from sales to further research treatments for toxoplasmosis." One word comment: BULLSHIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 21 Sep 2015 @ 4:11pm

Here Piggy.... Pigggy.... Piggggy.....
Martin Shkreli is an unethical fraction of a human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corey, 21 Sep 2015 @ 4:53pm

perfect example
of why TPP and TTIP must not pass the fast track process.

those two trade agreements would force this, on many other countries besides the USA. Like India where their patent law is more realistic. In India this kind of patent exploitation is not allowed. TPP would force India to adopt US style patent laws.

especially in country's that simply outright can not afford that kind of jump in prices.

I consider this a "crime against humanity" to exploit the sick in this manor.

I have to wonder if this particular company is a front for a group focused on reducing the population and eliminating the "undesirables"

Also, that claim of profits for research... Don't they already get grants and tax credits from organizations and governments to fund said research? meaning that they themselves are not actually footing the bill?

forget the lynching. maybe we need to roundup the leaders of this company and inject them with the HIV virus and require them to pay the same rates or more based on what kind of wealth they have stashed away. That way they struggle just like the average person does. Then see if they have a change of heart about how much they charge.

Also the price set is NOT suppose to go for other research it is suppose to be bound to the product purchased (service paid for service rendered). Not (pay for services not rendered)

I think they need to re-implement the 300% profit cap again that they had in the 80's for any goods or services charged.

I think they need to modify patent law and make it so patents can not be transferred. it can only expire.

purpose of patent was to allow original creator a short term monopoly, so they could be rewarded for the effort of bring a new service or product to society. Before others were allowed to tweek or modify the original design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 5:52pm

I already told you! If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
Silly pirates being silly again. If you aren't willing to spend the money, you don't get to have medicine. Simple as that. What a piratey hoot you are!

Attempt # 20! Masnick doesn't like it when corporations are paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 5:01am
  
  Re:
  out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    The above statement has been censored, therefore out_of_the_blue considers it true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 7:55pm

This kind of thing should be 100% illegal.

Too bad that no one has the balls to say "Lower the price or lose your business licence in the U.S."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 8:20pm

I saw a comment on reddit that I'd like to paraphrase here in response to this move.

Insurance companies should just start reimbursing for the flight to/from India (or other cheap-drug country) which will cost less per person than paying for this drug in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 9:55pm

Now all they need to do is create a cancer weapon that affects groups of people at once and they have a guaranteed profit maker.

As the cancer gun only affects a single target at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Sep 2015 @ 11:28pm

The truly sick thing is there are many drugs out there that have "little" call for them, although the people who need them will die without them.
There are hundreds of odd little diseases that no one is funding research into because it can't be profitable, letting people die.

We keep expecting these corporations to suddenly have a heart and do the right thing, how are we still this delusional?
We need to offer prize money for treatments being developed.
We need to then have a public benefit network of producers who create the pills and are allowed a tidy profit.
Some will balk at that idea, but what if finding the treatment/cure for a disease that only affects a few thousand people globally leads to something that can benefit even more people?
There is hardly any real research done in these areas, it is all focused on the next hot thing to keep the big bucks flowing in from treatments for ED, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and other problems we see advertised daily in the US.
We can't force them to work for the public good, but perhaps we should put our outrage to work on a real solution. I'd rather pray for this system to happen than for a CEO to suddenly get a heart and decide that benefiting the world matters more than his gold plated ass warmer.

This asshat is only doing what the system allows, and his money means he'll keep being able to do it because he can just buy the influence to protect his interests for a fairly low price (history of campaign "contributions" vs the billions that influence rakes in goes here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
voiceofReason (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 4:04am

A second look
Although this seems on its face to be outrageous, what about all the drugs whose costs have NOT been recouped? Do you assume all drugs make outrageous profits, or is a company supposed to price a drug without considering all other costs the company bears, such as for R&D for the much larger majority of drugs that failed along the path to approval, or even after approval?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: A second look
  You just made the case for getting patents off drugs and letting pharma be run as a tax-funded program.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: A second look
    I don't think so.
    
    First, patents are not the issue here.
    
    Second, the number of prescriptions being written for patented drugs continues to decline. I predicted a decade and a half ago that the number of prescriptions for patented drugs would stabilize at around 8%. It appears that I am off. The number of prescriptions for patented drugs looks like it is going to decline to about 4-5%, and it may drop even further. The bottom line is that with the minimal number of prescriptions for patented drugs, throwing pharm companies into a "tax-funded program" is likely to be BENEFIT pharm companies rather than solve a problem.
    
    Let's not create another government funded debacle (e.g., TSA and Obamacare).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 11:01am
      
      Government funded debacles
      Obamacare is still toddling but it's hardly a debacle. Unless you're talking about all the shenanigans by our representatives to shut it down, including holding our entire nation hostage (and costing taxpayers billions). That was a debacle.
      
      Obamacare may lead to a fully socialized medical program, which, given recent pharmaceutical news, may be a good thing.
      
      The TSA on the other hand was a tiger repellent rock to begin with. Now it's a TRR that cannot be disbanded.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Government funded debacles
        I consider Obamacare a debacle because:
        
        (1) Its administrative costs are 20%. Absurd.
        
        (2) For the benefit of the roughly 15 million people covered by Obamacare, which is less than 5% of the United States, health care costs have increased, choices have decreased, and thousands of companies are planning on cutting insurance benefits to avoid the 40% tax penalty that insurance plans above a certain dollar limit will face. So, tens of millions of people suffer for the benefit of 15 million people.
        
        I can't afford Obamacare, but I am getting taxed for not being able to afford it. I so love the way government works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Baron von Robber, 22 Sep 2015 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Government funded debacles
        You need to cite your sources.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Government funded debacles
        Sigh...Of course, essentially all this information has been widely reported, unless you have been living under a rock. However, here are some sources:
        
        Re overhead...
        
        SORRY! I was wrong about 20%. Apparently it was 45%, and is expected to EVENTUALLY drop to 20%. My bad.
        
        http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243188-overhead-costs-exploding-under-obamacare
        
        Here is a great article describing that most of the benefit of Obamacare is to low income people, and as income levels rise, participation falls off dramatically, and yet all people not participating are taxed for not participating.
        
        http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/25/low-income-people-loved-obamacare-but-the-rest-of-us.ht ml
        
        As for costs under Obamacare:
        
        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-fo r-2016.html?_r=0
        
        It ain't getting any better:
        
        http://humanevents.com/2015/08/26/obesity-and-health-care-costs-continue-to-rise-under-obamac are/
        
        http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2015/08/30/get-ready-because-big-changes-are-coming-to -obamac.aspx
        
        The so-called Cadillac tax of 40%:
        
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/25/obamacare-cadillac-tax-to-hit-1-in-4-employers-t ha/?page=all
        
        Wow, since Obamacare passed, the increase in health care costs compared to CPI have increased hugely!
        
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/06/29/u-s-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-infl ation/
        
        I probably have not provided sources for every single item, but you have sources for most. Perhaps I should ask, what SPECIFIC item would you like sourced?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Government funded debacles
        So, on balance, about 5% of the population was helped by Obamacare, and for everybody else, it pretty much sucks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2015 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Government funded debacles
        Just when you thought the information regarding the debacle could not get worse, it does.
        
        http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstories/obamacare-is-actually-not-so-affordable-unless-youre- broke/ar-AAf0EKn?li=AA4Zjn
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: A second look
  You're right! What if the company dies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:12am

Vote with your wallet!

Wait...

...that's the problem with monopolies. Get patents off drugs NOW!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:34am

Update
Looks like there was enough public backlash to make him rethink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/big-price-increase-for-tb-drug-is-rescinded.html? _r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: Update
  Never mind, that story's about a different drug. That'll teach me to RTFA before I post...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:57am
    
    Re: Re: Update
    Different drug, same context.
    
    Basically The Chao Center, a nonprofit group affiliated with Purdue University sold the rights to cycloserine to Rodelis Therapeutics, because obviously "in trying to support the product, the manufacturer [...] was losing significant
    money"
    
    I'm not an idiot, I KNOW that drugs cost money to make, and BIG MONEY at that, BUT WE REALLY need a middle-ground solution here.
    We don't ask 15000$ for a life vest or 30000$ for seat-belts in cars just because they happen to save lives.
    
    The same should go for drugs, ESPECIALLY out-of-patent generic drugs.
    
    But then again over half of the US would consider any such kind of funding socialism so it would most likely never fly...
    
    Sources:
    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/549f011de4b0bf1b6a9945dc/t/5600941ae4b02ea8d860a fbb/1442878490651/Update+Regarding+Cycloserine.pdf
    from here:
    http://www.newser.com/story/213219/massive-drug-price-increase-rolled-back.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bri (profile), 22 Sep 2015 @ 12:36pm

Seeing the future
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2g43kw/a_generic_drug_company_retrophin_buys_up_the/ckg20en

Wa s just reading more up on reddit, and user GarryMcMahon pointed out that about a year ago Shkreli was on reddit talking about this issue. Some people used the remindme bot to remind them a year later about it, predicting the storm this turned into. Turns out they were a 10 days off in their predictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2015 @ 6:43pm

That's fucking disgusting. I almost threw up reading this in my RSS feed and I got none of these diseases. Just give em some Seconal and morphine and let them die then. We need a new Dr.Kevorkian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel238 on his damn phone, 22 Sep 2015 @ 7:12pm
  
  For Tim.
  "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TriSongz, 22 Sep 2015 @ 9:17pm

We need to open-source pharma patents
While this happening is indeed quite tragic for the millions of people that it will effect, the real case in point is that there's nothing that prevents a scenario like this from happening again.

I write about it a bit more extensively at the link below, but we need to address this issue in a way that cannot rely on government intervention because the chances of it happening are slim to none. Rather, we need to find a way to open-source these pharma patents to allow many manufacturers to compete on the same level, and while they're still able to make profits, the competition with supply and demand would drive the cost of these drugs way down, benefiting ultimately everyone.

http://www.pixelrocketapps.com/lets-open-source-drug-patents-to-avoid-pharma-trolls/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFW, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:01am

We need to thank Shkreli
Before this story broke, how many people knew the practice of buying rights to low-use, low-priced drugs then jacking up prices was so common? Perhaps now that we know - AND AS LONG AS WE HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY'S INSURANCE PREMIUMS - Congress, etc. will impose limitations.

Yea, Right . . . I'm not counting on that either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFW, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:30am

We need to thank Shkreli
Before this story broke, how many people knew the practice of buying rights to low-use, low-priced drugs then jacking up prices was so common? Perhaps now that we know - AND AS LONG AS WE HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY'S INSURANCE PREMIUMS - Congress, etc. will impose limitations.

1) Yea, Right . . . I'm not counting on that either.
2) It pains me to suggest that the Federal Government should control a company's profit margins, but douches like Shkerli, and his excesses must be reined in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JF (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:53pm

Why
Actually I just read an article (I can't remember which tech site now) which said Shkreli typically shorts pharma stocks. So it is highly likely he is playing both sides. Short pharma stocks, buy up the drug, hike the price, and reap profits from the stock dip and increased income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 5:40pm

That greedy prick doesn't even look 30, which helps explain the entitled mentality. And his Twitter account is protected now, so you have to request permission to follow him. Apparently he likes being a prick, but doesn't like being called one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeldansFire (profile), 6 Oct 2015 @ 9:57am

Swipe left
looks like Shkreli's tinder matches even call him out on this. Granted it could be fake but its funny nonetheless
http://cheezburger.com/8572140288/hook-up-of-the-day-girl-matches-with-that-dude-who-uppe d-the-price-on-the-life-saving-aids-drug-by?ref=kymhottoday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rhonda, 27 Oct 2015 @ 3:19pm

never give up
Never give up because you are HIV Positive visit: http://drodiaherbalisthome.webs.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2016 @ 11:12am

I bought 4 tablets of Albenza a year ago at my family's urging. The $12.00 tablets
had been removed from the shelves of every pharmacy around. I paid c. $750.00.
The drug does nothing to cure the parasite.

Doc should have done the research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig Welch (profile), 7 Dec 2016 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  Why would you want to cure the parasites? Wouldn't you want to kill them?
  
  Surely the objective is to cure the patient who has parasites. Albenza does cure some parasite related infections.
  
  What research should your doctor have done that s/he did not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]