Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Hedge fund d1ck raises price of AIDS and Protozoan medication by 5000%

  • 21-09-2015 10:14PM
    #1
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Daraprim is the trade name for a drug which treats diseases like Malaria and Toxoplasmosis, Both diseases result from infections from parasites but AIDS victims require Daraprim because they are a lot more susceptible to toxoplasmosis. Martin Shkrelihedge fund manager owns Turing pharmaceuticals which bought Daraprim. He then raised the price from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. This is a drug essential to AIDs victims. It's also an old drug with no new research aimed at improving it and it's synthesis isn't price intensive.

    The same guy was previously CEO of Retrophin which previously raised the price of Thiola, a drug used to treat a rare kidney disease resulting from incorrect metabolism of cysteine an amino acid. He raised the price 20 fold despite not pumping any further money into research ect.

    Should this guy be allowed to get away with this? A lot of new biotech industries are run by scientists simply because the business heads had no clue how to run the business. These people tend to be in it for the right reasons. Should we have a situation like this where the lives of hundreds of thousands of people can be made a whole lot difficult just because a billionaire wants to make a lot more money.?

    Edit: Link added


«134567…18

Comments

  • #2
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Patents on older drugs run out. There'll be a generic form along shortly.


  • #3
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Big business ,Big Pharma.

    Sure wasn't the government paying way over the odds for medicines here yet the same medicines were readily available in other states for alot cheaper
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #4
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    There's probably a reasonable argument to be made for killing this guy


  • #5
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    There's probably a reasonable argument to be made for killing this guy

    Insure him first
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hedge-funder-buys-rights-aids-drug-and-raises-price-from-13-50-to-750-per-pill/

    What a bellend, some of his tweets are shocking - zero fooks given...


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Martin Shkrelihedge fund manager owns Turing pharmaceuticals which bought Daraprim. He then raised the price from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. This is a drug essential to AIDs victims. It's also an old drug with no new research aimed at improving it and it's synthesis isn't price intensive.

    So previously the drug was sold by the company that developed it at 13.50 a pill?
    Then the product was sold and produced by Turing which sells at 750 a pill, thats pretty criminal but I am curious was the initial company selling at a price that would have turned them a profit after R & D or were they expecting a payout from selling the patent?
    I'm not a fan of the whole big pharma thing but I do think that they produce vital medicines and without the huge levels of R & D they invest we would be worse off.


  • #8
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    These are the kinds of people who represent despicable greedy, truth-spinning, just plain nastiness in the world. Really disgusting that he'd justify it at all. At least own it if you are going to consciously do bad on other people.


  • #9
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    Is it bad that my first thoughts were that he needs to be assassinated? I'm usually a pacifist. O_o


  • #10
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Patents on older drugs run out. There'll be a generic form along shortly.

    You'd imagine that another company would bring out a generic to undercut this serious price gouging. However to do this, a rival company has to show their generic is bioequivalent to this brand by giving both to groups of patients and showing blood levels are comparable. The problem is this company switched the drug from normal supply through pharmacies to direct from them to the patient to restrict access which means rival companies have difficulty procuring supplies of the original brand to do the necessary bioequivalence study. Serious dirty tactics at play.


  • #11
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Link added to the OP guys!


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Taco Chips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Taco Chips


    Total, utter scumbag. As are the subsequent actions to impede another pharmaceutical company from bringing out their own generic formulation. Surely there are some kind of trade laws at play here that can prevent this.


  • #13
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Just watched an interview with Shkreli, he had plenty of convincing soundbites to try to justify this price increase. He suggested the switch to direct to patient distribution (which makes it tougher for other companies to make a generic) was to provide more "dedicated patient services" by partnering the company with distributors and patients to ensure it's a "very cared for community".

    He also tries to benchmark it against other drugs for orphan/rare diseases to justify the price. These are diseases with a low prevalence that have been neglected in terms of pharmaceutical development and do not have effective treatments. Companies are incentivesed by being paid a high price if they develop new drugs for these conditions that addresses the unmet needs. The current situation is not the same, this is an existing and well established drug that can effectively treat this disease.

    The whole thing is really exploitative and is yet another sign that the current system of drug development needs fixing.


  • #14
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    Before rushing to hurl abuse at this guy after just reading a clickbait headline have a look at this

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-


  • #15
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    Before rushing to hurl abuse at this guy after just reading a clickbait headline have a look at this

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-

    ...and then kill him. GSK supplied the drug for $1/tablet for years, now it is $750. You can't justify that with "cost of business" increases. In fact in that video he explicitly argues $13.50/tablet was too inexpensive for a lifesaving drug compared to the market for lifesaving drugs (cancer treatment programs can cost about $100k, where this drug program was about $100). Clearly, he has no eye for public benefit and all but admits exploiting people who have no choice between Life or Debt.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057497234

    I dare ye to sit through that video [the quote above] and not think that man is detached from reality.


  • #16
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    Before rushing to hurl abuse at this guy after just reading a clickbait headline have a look at this

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-

    The link is from an article detailing the biotech industry. The mainstream media also talked about it but I wanted to link to something less clickbaity.

    Right could you detail your opinion on the clickbait you have linked to? He doesn't say anything whatsoever that leads me to believe he didn't raise the price of this because of pure greed.


  • #17
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Overheal wrote: »
    ...and then kill him. GSK supplied the drug for $1/tablet for years, now it is $750. You can't justify that with "cost of business" increases. In fact in that video he explicitly argues $13.50/tablet was too inexpensive for a lifesaving drug compared to the market for lifesaving drugs (cancer treatment programs can cost about $100k, where this drug program was about $100). Clearly, he has no eye for public benefit and all but admits exploiting people who have no choice between Life or Debt.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1028

    I dare ye to sit through that video and not think that man is detached from reality.

    Exactly. All he said in that video is that other life saving drugs make more we can make more. He's a slimy piece of work.


  • #18
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    Overheal wrote: »
    ...and then kill him. GSK supplied the drug for $1/tablet for years, now it is $750. You can't justify that with "cost of business" increases. In fact in that video he explicitly argues $13.50/tablet was too inexpensive for a lifesaving drug compared to the market for lifesaving drugs (cancer treatment programs can cost about $100k, where this drug program was about $100). Clearly, he has no eye for public benefit and all but admits exploiting people who have no choice between Life or Debt.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1028

    I say he would have an eye for public benefit when he says that they want to make a better drug that is less toxic and has a chance of 100% working and he also saying that he will give the drug for free if people cant afford it or there is a problem with their insurance company.


  • #19
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Exactly. All he said in that video is that other life saving drugs make more we can make more. He's a slimy piece of work.

    I don't think you've watched it all or else you are just hearing what you want to hear.


  • #20
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    I tend to assume that any Twitterstorm news story is about 90% false. It saves time.


  • #21
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    goose2005 wrote: »
    I tend to assume that any Twitterstorm news story is about 90% false. It saves time.

    Fantastic dude except the article is from a biotechnology review.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    Before rushing to hurl abuse at this guy after just reading a clickbait headline have a look at this

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-

    Of course he's going to spin it -- it's his job. But I'm not buying it...


  • #23
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    I don't think you've watched it all or else you are just hearing what you want to hear.

    Yea I did. I missed the justification for the 5000% increase. Could you explain it in your own words?


  • #24
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    Overheal wrote: »
    I dare ye to sit through that video and not think that man is detached from reality.

    I think you are detached from reality if you think its possible to run a drug company with a turnover of $5,000,000.


  • #25
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    I say he would have an eye for public benefit when he says that they want to make a better drug that is less toxic and has a chance of 100% working and he also saying that he will give the drug for free if people cant afford it or there is a problem with their insurance company.

    OK could you detail the toxic effects of the drug and can you give estimates for the average amount of time needed to deal with each issue? Basically he says he wants to make a better drug but in the meantime he increased the cost of the only available drug by 5000%. I don't think that it's logical to say he has the public interest at heart. He doesn't even make sense.


  • #26
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    I think you are detached from reality if you think its possible to run a drug company with a turnover of $5,000,000.

    A whole drug company survived on a profit of five million? Is that strictly true?


  • #27
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    can't believe someone who controls supply of something is making money from it, rabbbblle rabbbbblle

    outbid him, then give it away.

    lobby or gain political power to change the system that allows this

    develop an alternative and compete

    be outraged on the internet

    select from above options. hint, one is awful easy and achieves zero.


  • #28
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    A whole drug company survived on a profit of five million? Is that strictly true?

    There's a difference between turnover and profit.
    If it was worthwhile the previous owners wouldn't have sold it.
    No I cannot detail the toxic effects of the drug, can you? And can you detail the exact cost of making the drug, not just the ingredients?


  • #29
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    OK could you detail the toxic effects of the drug and can you give estimates for the average amount of time needed to deal with each issue? Basically he says he wants to make a better drug but in the meantime he increased the cost of the only available drug by 5000%. I don't think that it's logical to say he has the public interest at heart. He doesn't even make sense.

    Literally its the Pharma version of Irish Water


  • #30
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    EasycomeEasygo wrote: »
    There's a difference between turnover and profit.
    If it was worthwhile the previous owners wouldn't have sold it.
    No I cannot detail the toxic effects of the drug, can you? And can you detail the exact cost of making the drug, not just the ingredients?

    Oh maybe it wasn't as profitable as it could have been. There's no denying that. I'm saying it doesn't justify raising the cost 5000%.

    You understand the process of making a drug? The most expensive part is research and development. That had already been paid out by the previous company. They only pay for synthesis and marketing. The previous company paid out significantly more cost yet sold it for 5000% less.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    EasycomeEasygo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭EasycomeEasygo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Oh maybe it wasn't as profitable as it could have been. There's no denying that. I'm saying it doesn't justify raising the cost 5000%.

    You understand the process of making a drug? The most expensive part is research and development. That had already been paid out by the previous company. They only pay for synthesis and marketing. The previous company paid out significantly more cost yet sold it for 5000% less.

    I thought you said you watched the video, he said he want to make a new better version of the drug, wheres the money for that going to come from? He already paid 11 times the turnover for it.


Advertisement
Advertisement