Post: #1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34320413

Quote:The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%.

Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.

CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments.

The drug treats toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems.

After Turing's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750.

The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution, which have increased dramatically in recent years.

Agreeing a price for any drug is a tricky business.

In the UK, the National Health Service is the main buyer and prices are set through a voluntary scheme between manufacturers and the government, trying to strike the right balance of serving patients and generating money to keep the drug pipeline going. Profits are capped to stop prices creeping too high.

In the US, the buyers are private insurance companies as well as the government through the Medicare and Medicaid system. It's a market and prices can go up and down, depending on what people are willing to pay.

In recent years, pharmaceutical research and development has slowed and companies have to think carefully about what they invest in. Blockbusters such as Viagra pull in money, but orphan drugs for rare diseases can be less attractive. Not many patients use them, and so turning a profit may be difficult.

Quote:US drug company to cut 5,000% price rise after backlash

A US drug company that faced a backlash after raising the price of a drug used by Aids patients by over 5,000% has said it will lower the price.

Martin Shkreli, the head of Turing Pharmaceuticals, told US media he would drop the price following the outcry, but did not say by how much.

Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.

It then raised the cost of the drug, which treats a parasitic infection, from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750.

Amid criticism from medical groups - one called the cost "unjustifiable" - Mr Shkreli on Monday defended the increase, saying the profits would help research new treatments.

He accused critics of not understanding the pharmaceutical industry.

But he has now told ABC News: "We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit."

Earlier in the day, PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry's main lobbying group, tweeted that Turing "does not represent the values of PhRMA member companies".

Post: #2

On it's face, I'd say this evil and the company deserves to be broken up, sold off, and the owners thrown to the lions.

On the other hands, most of the people who need AIDs medicine are the gays, especially the bug chaser/poz crowd. Seeing how increasing intent they are on shoving their culture down my throat and intolerant they prove despite the cries for treatment opposite of what they give out....I care not.

G

Post: #3

I've edited the original post. I found another article immediately after I posted stating they have decreased the price, but doesn't state the new price.

I read that the average yearly cost for HIV treatment in the UK is £18k per person which is picked up by the tax payer. I used to work with a homosexual who is HIV positive, and he was completely blasé about his status, stating he just has to take a little pill to manage his disease, obviously oblivious to the cost to tax payers. It certainly opened my eyes about that subculture.

Post: #4

The guy has a punchable face. But I bet there is more to the story than that is being told in almost every outlet. Its likes the same story too, no attempt at originality, like the gamergate situation. Where all of the outlets released the same story at the same time.

Post: #5

(09-22-2015 09:16 PM)Marmite Wrote:  I've edited the original post. I found another article immediately after I posted stating they have decreased the price, but doesn't state the new price.

I read that the average yearly cost for HIV treatment in the UK is £18k per person which is picked up by the tax payer. I used to work with a homosexual who is HIV positive, and he was completely blasé about his status, stating he just has to take a little pill to manage his disease, obviously oblivious to the cost to tax payers. It certainly opened my eyes about that subculture.

I suspect it's worse than you think.

G

Post: #6

It's not like anyone ever paid for this out of pocket anyway. Insurance companies pay for it all. And do you know how much fucking money the health care insurance companies rake in for profits? Their gross margin is 70 fucking percent. I'm quite sure they can afford to buy a hundred years worth of those pills for everyone on the planet.

Post: #7

This guy had an AMA on reddit, and was also responding to a good amount of comments as this story was breaking. Its pretty bad.

Post: #8

(09-22-2015 09:13 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  On it's face, I'd say this evil and the company deserves to be broken up, sold off, and the owners thrown to the lions.

On the other hands, most of the people who need AIDs medicine are the gays, especially the bug chaser/poz crowd. Seeing how increasing intent they are on shoving their culture down my throat and intolerant they prove despite the cries for treatment opposite of what they give out....I care not.

G

It's effectively a power-grab for gays because this cost is subsidized through the government. Basically everyone wins here except the average man who ends up footing the bill and transferring money to the government, corporations, and malignant social forces that are literally out to destroy him.

Post: #9

(09-22-2015 09:40 PM)Repo Wrote:  This guy had an AMA on reddit, and was also responding to a good amount of comments as this story was breaking. Its pretty bad.

He took the Trump approach and was no-apologies about it: Basically said, "it's allowed by law, no fucks given. I'm accountable to my investors and they want to maximize their wealth."

If anyone believes its wrong -and it may morally be wrong or it may morally not be wrong- this is supposed to be the role of government to reign in behavior in the name of common good. So it basically comes down to a defect of government regulation (surprise, surprise!)

The NYT has been running a few very balanced articles on him today and yesterday.

But the big picture is it's more than just this guy. This is a much larger system with many cogs at play bigger than this guy including the insurance companies, the regulations, and the role of medicine.

It may also be just a tactic he used for publicity. He's a hedge fund manager. Now his name is on the books and he'll have a whole lot more investor money since all the articles about him describe him as a finance & biotech wizard from many people in the know.

Post: #10

I heard it was an anti-malarial

Post: #11

I don't have time or patience to post some of his more notable quotes while on my cell phone, but this is his reddit user name if you want to check him out.

https://np.reddit.com/user/martinshkreli

Post: #12

Toxoplasmosis is also a disease of crazy cat ladies. Coincidence?

Post: #13

(09-22-2015 09:39 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:16 PM)Marmite Wrote:  I've edited the original post. I found another article immediately after I posted stating they have decreased the price, but doesn't state the new price.

I read that the average yearly cost for HIV treatment in the UK is £18k per person which is picked up by the tax payer. I used to work with a homosexual who is HIV positive, and he was completely blasé about his status, stating he just has to take a little pill to manage his disease, obviously oblivious to the cost to tax payers. It certainly opened my eyes about that subculture.

I suspect it's worse than you think.

G

Quote:The Majority of Homosexuals Are Spreading HIV On Purpose, and It’s being Covered Up

Holy shit that's some scary stuff if even any of that is true.

Anyone ever played the game "Plague Inc: Evolved"? Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.

Post: #14

(09-22-2015 10:13 PM)Gmac Wrote:  Holy shit that's some scary stuff if even any of that is true.

Anyone ever played the game "Plague Inc: Evolved"? Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.

Imagine if the gays had to pay for their HIV medicine and the man hiked up the price. Overnight gays might not have as much disposable cash as they used to - corporations and businesses readjust advertising as necessary.

G

Post: #15

(09-22-2015 09:48 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  I heard it was an anti-malarial

(09-22-2015 09:13 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  On the other hands, most of the people who need AIDs medicine are the gays, especially the bug chaser/poz crowd. Seeing how increasing intent they are on shoving their culture down my throat and intolerant they prove despite the cries for treatment opposite of what they give out....I care not.

G

(09-22-2015 10:00 PM)Hades Wrote:  Toxoplasmosis is also a disease of crazy cat ladies. Coincidence?

I had a feeling there would be some sentiment toward the medication being for HIV - not on just RVF, but some other places featured people who took the guy's side on the sole basis that it was for HIV treatment. Many laypress articles began to generalize the medicine as being an HIV med (out of the 'cocktail' of drugs most patients actually have to take).


Just thought I'd clear things up - the medicine, Daraprim, does have a use in HIV patients, but only in specialized cases. So not every HIV patient would even need this drug.

It is also used to treat Malaria, Encephalitis, foodborne illnesses, and finally some rare forms of cancer. The latter often occurs in children. In general, toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease, and in reality, a ton of people (perhaps even yourself) have some form of "toxoplasmosis," but the issues begin to really manifest when you have immune deficiencies.


Getting off the soap box now, and I'm not here to attack anyone's beliefs, posting here just to clarify.

Post: #16

(09-22-2015 10:13 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:39 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  I suspect it's worse than you think.

G

Quote:The Majority of Homosexuals Are Spreading HIV On Purpose, and It’s being Covered Up

Holy shit that's some scary stuff if even any of that is true.

Yep it's true. I watched a documentary about the stuff in the link Geomann posted.

"Bug catching" is the act of intentionally contracting HIV. It's a specific fetish, and bug catchers have a strong yearning to to be "poz."

Once they are "poz," they are then affected by the complimentary fetish called "gift giving." This is the overwhelming desire to change a "neg" into a "poz."

I wish I didn't know this, and I realise this could be triggering for people learning this for the first time, but I need others to share my burden.

Post: #17

He did this fair and square, no matter how outrageous it can be.

This should be a more wide opening case on how big pharma prices meds and how insurance works incahoots with them.

I love how everyone's outraged at these pill prices, it's like we forgot about the AIDS virus in Africa, noone gives a shit about it.

We should be having a larger discussion on health reform, and I don't mean Obamacare.

Post: #18

(09-22-2015 11:02 PM)kaotic Wrote:  He did this fair and square, no matter how outrageous it can be.

This should be a more wide opening case on how big pharma prices meds and how insurance works incahoots with them.

I love how everyone's outraged at these pill prices, it's like we forgot about the AIDS virus in Africa, noone gives a shit about it.

We should be having a larger discussion on health reform, and I don't mean Obamacare.

That's hard to do when it's more profitable to sell people medicine for their rest of their lives than a cure they'll buy once and need no more.

G

Post: #19

(09-22-2015 11:08 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  That's hard to do when it's more profitable to sell people medicine for their rest of their lives than a cure they'll buy once and need no more.

G

Of course I know this, everyone wants to make a profit off lifelong customers.

I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

I've been told by doctors I know that there is a cure for everything nowadays....if you want to fork over the cash. It's been an open secret for years now.

Post: #20

(09-22-2015 11:02 PM)kaotic Wrote:  He did this fair and square, no matter how outrageous it can be.

This should be a more wide opening case on how big pharma prices meds and how insurance works incahoots with them.

I love how everyone's outraged at these pill prices, it's like we forgot about the AIDS virus in Africa, noone gives a shit about it.

We should be having a larger discussion on health reform, and I don't mean Obamacare.

To be honest, I don't understand the business sense of the decision.

The molecule isn't under patent. The only reason no one is bothering to make the drug is because the manufacturer was already making it too cheap to compete.

In India, according to Wikipedia, the generic form of the drug costs US$0.10 - ten cents a tab. However, in the UK, its a lot more expensive - it's a whole 66 cents a tab.

Really, pushing up the price to $750 is just going to invite rival companies to engage in geo-arbitrage - you can buy the same drug already pretty cheap in other places in the world (i.e. you don't need to do R&D, build a factory, etc; the infrastructure already exists). The only obstacle is the FDA, which has to register any generic drug as an equivalent. But with prices of $750 vs 10c, the FDA will be under a lot of public pressure to expedite the process.

TL;DR: Pushing the price up that high on a molecule that is not under patent doesn't make sense, given the worldwide availability of cheap versions.

Post: #21

(09-22-2015 11:21 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 11:02 PM)kaotic Wrote:  He did this fair and square, no matter how outrageous it can be.

This should be a more wide opening case on how big pharma prices meds and how insurance works incahoots with them.

I love how everyone's outraged at these pill prices, it's like we forgot about the AIDS virus in Africa, noone gives a shit about it.

We should be having a larger discussion on health reform, and I don't mean Obamacare.

To be honest, I don't understand the business sense of the decision.

The molecule isn't under patent. The only reason no one is bothering to make the drug is because the manufacturer was already making it too cheap to compete.

In India, according to Wikipedia, the generic form of the drug costs US$0.10 - ten cents a tab. However, in the UK, its a lot more expensive - it's a whole 66 cents a tab.

Really, pushing up the price to $750 is just going to invite rival companies to engage in geo-arbitrage - you can buy the same drug already pretty cheap in other places in the world (i.e. you don't need to do R&D, build a factory, etc; the infrastructure already exists). The only obstacle is the FDA, which has to register any generic drug as an equivalent. But with prices of $750 vs 10c, the FDA will be under a lot of public pressure to expedite the process.

TL;DR: Pushing the price up that high on a molecule that is not under patent doesn't make sense, given the worldwide availability of cheap versions.

Therein lies the rub against the, otherwise very valid, "Pro Capitalism!" slant. The patent I believe is expired? It's anyones game now. Those who believe in the free hand of the market, do have some valid points but they must explain away FDA (regulatory) approval of medicines before they are available in the market.

Post: #22

I wonder if those taking this drug are less likely to transmit? The importance being that with the rise of the "celebrated" gay lifestyle, they will get their clutches on more young impressionable men (who didn't have strong father figures). Those men will fuck gay men up the butt one week, and then have sex with college age women the second.

This is serious stuff, especially for all you raw-doggers. That college chic whose pussy your dick was in last night might of been filled up with a shit covered bisexual dick the night before. . .

Post: #23

(09-22-2015 11:27 PM)ManVsMachine Wrote:  Therein lies the rub against the, otherwise very valid, "Pro Capitalism!" slant. The patent I believe is expired? It's anyones game now. Those who believe in the free hand of the market, do have some valid points but they must explain away FDA (regulatory) approval of medicines before they are available in the market.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments.

There is nothing free market about the FDA. They can block the medicine and make it illegal to import because the rival company payed them out.

A free market agency wouldn't have the power to block the importation of approved cheaper drugs.

Post: #24

(09-22-2015 11:21 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  Really, pushing up the price to $750 is just going to invite rival companies to engage in geo-arbitrage - you can buy the same drug already pretty cheap in other places in the world (i.e. you don't need to do R&D, build a factory, etc; the infrastructure already exists). The only obstacle is the FDA, which has to register any generic drug as an equivalent. But with prices of $750 vs 10c, the FDA will be under a lot of public pressure to expedite the process.

In the US it will serve as an invite to the Federal Government to get involved in negotiating drug prices with drug companies. As it is now, the US is the one developed country in the world where the government is specifically prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices. Doing stupid shit like this can cause enough outrage to get laws changed.

Post: #25

I get the vibe it was part hustle and part publicity stunt to drive up shares. I just noticed now I have ad banners for HIV drugs from reading about this story in the news sites. The cookies/Adsense have been activated which leads me to believe the ads were put ahead of the story being put out.