It creates a weird issue for sentencing. Shkreli was convicted of fraud, which is bad. But that fraud didn't cost anyone any money: All of his hedge-fund investors ultimately made money after Retrophin Inc., his public pharmaceutical company, succeeded. (He was charged with defrauding Retrophin by setting up fake consulting arrangements with some of those hedge-fund investors, but the jury acquitted him of that.) And federal fraud sentencing guidelines are focused, overwhelmingly, on the amount of loss. "Government lawyers are expected to focus on the intended loss, and say that it was in the millions," but the jury concluded that there was no intended loss either: Shkreli, in the jury's model, honestly meant to make money for everyone, and he honestly did.
In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drug Daraprim and raised its price by a factor of 56 (from US$13.5 to US$750 per pill), leading him to be referred to as "the most hated man in America" and "pharma bro".[10][11][12][13][14][15]
they need to be expensive in order to be able to fund the research — Agustino
Cat feces is a common source — Bitter Crank
Well it is a rare disease in the medical & technical sense, even though the disease causing agent is not. So his argument seems to be that there should be research to produce better drugs, but at such a low price point, there isn't enough money to invest in research. There just isn't enough volume of sales to generate the revenue required.Toxoplasmosis (a brain infection) is not a communion disease, but not exactly rare, either. — Bitter Crank
In addition, he says that there is no one who needs the medicine who doesn't get it. If they don't have insurance, he claims they can get Deraprim for free. — Agustino
his argument seems to be that there should be research to produce better drugs, but at such a low price point, there isn't enough money to invest in research. — Agustino
First, you have to think about the motives of Shkreli raising the price. Did he have information that other companies would soon have access to the drug? Was the usage of the drug decreasing so he would have to raise the price to make up for the last profit? T — Jeff
there should be research to produce better drugs — Agustino
The cost of a monthly course for a person on 75 mg dose rose to about $75,000/month, or $750 per tablet.
In India, over a dozen pharmaceutical companies manufacture and sell pyrimethamine [trade name of Daraprim] tablets, and multiple combinations of generic pyrimethamine are available for a price ranging from US$0.04 to US$0.10 each (3–7 rupees).
In the UK, the same drug is available from GSK at a cost of US$20 (£13) for 30 tablets (about $0.66 each).
In Australia, the drug is available in most pharmacists at a cost of US$9.35 (A$12.99) for 50 tablets (around US$0.18 each).[]
Not really. They didn't even invent the drug, they bought the drug. There is no patent on the drug either, so anyone could produce the same thing and sell it if they wanted to.As I understand it his company essentially held a monopoly on the drug — Buxtebuddha
I think that he doesn't take the theoretical economics approach to the question, but rather the entrepreneurial one that if you want to do research on the drug, then it cannot be at the same price. And he profits from the first mover advantage since obviously someone can't produce the drug overnight to compete against him.so while he tries to infer natural economics - that low quantity will raise the price - such a principle really only exists in a free market, not the closed, monopolistic environment that was (is?) the reality for daraprim. If there was a market for daraprim then the price would be more competitive and subsequently much lower. — Buxtebuddha
Yes, he very likely is a hollow moral wretch, but we're discussing the wrongness of just this one act of raising price.As for whether he'll be arrested or whatever, I don't know. I admit to not knowing all his potentially criminal dealings, but I do know that he's a morally hollow wretch. — Buxtebuddha
Yes, you would be right that this only applies to US. But then, if no one is harmed by the price raise - except insurance companies - is it bad? I mean those insurance companies are already huge and they make money out of doing almost nothing - I think it's quite good if they lose it :PMight be true, might not. A lot of companies have "compassionate donation" programs where they reserve a certain number units for those who can't afford them. However, that benefit isn't (usually, as far as I know) extended to countries that can't afford to buy stocks of this (or any other) drug. — Bitter Crank
Is it possible that toxoplasmosis (usually in HIV patients I suppose) is treated most of the time in conjunction with other potent drugs?I don't know whether to believe Shkreli about the side effects. The FDA Rx page mentioned bone marrow suppression in conjunction with other rather potent drugs. — Bitter Crank
Well yeah, no doubt it is at minimum also venal. But then the question here is if there are people who were actually harmed by it.My thought is that Shkreli's motivation was purely venal. — Bitter Crank
Well yeah, no doubt it is at minimum also venal. But then the question here is if there are people who were actually harmed by it. — Agustino
I really don't know why he couldn't have seen this coming. I don't even think he was as bad as he was made out to be originally, but he deliberately set out to play up his negatives. For a supposedly smart guy... — Baden
As I was saying in another thread, mental illness seems quite common amongst entrepreneurs, despite popular culture about it.A psychological examination of Shkreli performed before his sentencing found that he suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and an unspecified personality disorder.
The weird thing about the government that I've realised lately is that... if you upset the wrong people, they will find a reason to put you in jail, and if they don't have one, they will even make one up. Shkreli was thrown in prison for a joke of a reason - securities fraud - because he used money from the pharma business to pay back hedge fund investors - and everyone made money in this transaction, there was no prejudice. Why isn't the government going after Elon Musk, who used Tesla funds to pay for SpaceX costs in 2008? He created a potential prejudice for his investors and acted illegally - if Tesla would have gone bankrupt, then Elon would have been charged with defrauding his investors. But there was no prejudice, and Elon didn't upset the wrong people, so no one bothers. — Agustino
No, but securities fraud isn't the only wrongdoing a CEO can do.Did Musk commit securities fraud? — Michael
I agree.That means at the very least appearing humble and contrite from the beginning, particularly when you know you've broken a law (even one which is usually not prosecuted in the breach). — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.