Pharma company raises price on drug used to treat life-threatening infections 5500%

[Remiel]

<Linguica> the guy paid $5000 for a MUD character and ended up getting banned for role-playing giving someone a non consensual blowjob

Why do I get the feeling that this happened on DragonRealms

[Astral-Doomer]

I really don't understand some people. ;-( I hope this isn't being done because of greed or malicious purposes. If he did role-play as whatever, giving someone the sloppy & got banned in a MUD RPG, this will only fuel his evil agenda against mankind. :-O Well, it seems people are very much against this & the price will go down, I hope. ;-)

[Linguica]

Remiel said:

Why do I get the feeling that this happened on DragonRealms

https://twitter.com/Olesh__/status/646140521593769985

[Reisal]

Apparently he has rescinded this ridiculous price increase back to what it was but is still being sued for 65 million.

[Doomkid]

Really glad the price has gone back down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243938/Ex-hedge-funder-32-hated-man-internet-defends-jacking-prices-AIDS-medication-5500.html

lmao scrolling almost to the bottom and seeing his OK cupid profile is hilarious, dude seems like a massive wanker

"I spend a lot of time thinking about : Human suffering"

ROFL yeah, like as in how to cause it!

[GreyGhost]

Clonehunter said:

Isn't their a Doomworld page with a big greedy Jew on it surrounded by floating 90s gifs?

I've seen it in a Losers thread, but can't recall which one.

[40oz]

Say what you will about this guy, but such extreme unethical and rude behavior that is grounds for suing is probably the best thing that could happen to someone who is using that medication. Much better than a delayed recall or un warranted side effects.

sometimes when I'm feeling dirt poor I'll be walking in a grocery store parking lot and pray that dude on his cell phone driving a Mercedes hits me as I'm walking out of the store.

[j4rio]

Doomkid said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243938/Ex-hedge-funder-32-hated-man-internet-defends-jacking-prices-AIDS-medication-5500.html

Medication of malaria patients with AIDS... what are the odds? It's quite clearly a last resort to cash in from an obscure and use-impaired drug. I wonder if there are any factual numbers of patients dependant on this particular drug. If he's sued, I doubt he'll lose the case, because raising prices this way is actually not really against the law as far as I know.

[DooM_RO]

I hope he gets Super AIDS.

[DooM_RO]

Don't worry guys, it gets even better.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/pharma-ceo-hacked-legal-rival-harassed-wife-teenage-son/

[Reisal]

He's definitely a bigger piece of shit than I thought. Fuck him and fuck the business he runs. (not the one that is suing him for 60+ mil)

[SavageCorona]

Is MUD referring to the thing that Runescape evolved from?

[dg93]

Interesting article about the research & development of these pharmaceutical drugs and how it affects the selling price.

[j4rio]

^ So it's supposedly 8000-12000 patients. Then it's exactly what I thought, and actually not even remotely against law. It's basically abuse of a pharmacoeconomical loophole. At this point I would search for options of import of the drug from abroad, but I don't know about US laws regarding this. Hypothetically, if every single manufacturer of pyrimethamine generics raised prices as a reponse to this, there would be nothing any government could do about, other than changing international rules regarding the matter.

[Gez]

the_miano said:

Interesting article about the research & development of these pharmaceutical drugs and how it affects the selling price.

Pretty funny that most of the article is concerned about talking about libertarians instead of about the issue it's supposed to talk about. Of course given the URL it's not a surprise.

[dg93]

Gez said:

Pretty funny that most of the article is concerned about talking about libertarians instead of about the issue it's supposed to talk about. Of course given the URL it's not a surprise.

Yes it's an article aimed towards a libertarian audience, but it's addressing how much the cost goes into research and development of these drugs along with how the Federal regulation waiting periods (FDA approval) affects the companies. If you don't agree with the statistics and examples written in the article, at least argue your points against that instead of just bashing it for being a libertarian website.

[dew]

the_miano said:

Yes it's an article aimed towards a libertarian audience, but it's addressing how much the cost goes into research and development of these drugs along with how the Federal regulation waiting periods (FDA approval) affects the companies. If you don't agree with the statistics and examples written in the article, at least argue your points against that instead of just bashing it for being a libertarian website.

Fuck off, that drug is 62 years old. Can you at least try to sound relevant?

[Quasar]

dew said:

Fuck off, that drug is 62 years old. Can you at least try to sound relevant?

And just bought off by a company that did *not* develop it. I used to look up to libertarian ideals, back when they weren't a thinly veiled front for Republican corporate exceptionalism. Libertarian values should apply at the individual level of human beings and small social organizations. International megacorporations with the power of life and death over thousands or millions of people cannot be treated with the same principles. In fact, the libertarianism I used to know would have made such organizations impossible, not supported them in anything evil they do just because it's for profit.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand.

[j4rio]

Yes it's an article aimed towards a libertarian audience, but it's addressing how much the cost goes into research and development of these drugs along with how the Federal regulation waiting periods (FDA approval) affects the companies.

You didn't get the whole picture about the research. Once you get a patent on an innovative active substance, you're a billionaire. It doesn't just cover costs of the research you funded, it covers floors of your mansions with cash and world-wide fame. The equation isn't balanced out and that is simply because companies that pour cash into research which ends up being failure basically means an unavoidable bankruptcy, they'll never get their money back. After getting a patent on a new active substance, the company that created this active substance is for 10 years an untouchable monopoly of the market that involves this new active substance and the drug form it is sold in. After 10 years, the company loses the rights of the market monopoly of the drug, because the patent expires, but at that point covers of research are multitude of times covered. The patent expiration means that the procedure to manufacture the drug becomes public domain. That's where generics come in - they are the exact same replicas of molecules as the original drug, but sold cheaper - that way they can compete with the original drug on market. These generic drugs have to be pharmacodynamically identical and pharmacokinetically at least 95% identical, but getting that is actually trivial procedure from scientifical as well as economical point of view in comparision to actual drug developing business (but it's still costly as shit to be able to bring up a generic pill on market).

The drug that has been skyrocketed in price is a generic, a copy, so that's where all the bashing comes from.

[Gez]

Besides, does anyone here really believes Shkreli jacked up the price of this drug so as to get money to invest in further medical research? He's a venture capitalist, he's here to get fast ROI. He doesn't care about medical research. None of the profit he'll make from Daraprim sales will go into designing new drugs. Not. One. Cent.

So yeah, Shkreli is a parasite, a vampire, and a sociopathic asshole with no redeeming trait.

[dg93]

I'm aware that the drug has been around since the 1950's. I've worked in a pharmacy a few years ago and I have a little understanding of drug patents. Shkreli claims that the reason he jacked up the price was to fund for a "new and better drug" to treat Toxoplasmosis .... which to me seems very asinine. What is wrong with the current drug Daraprim? I understand that research and development along with FDA regulations comes with a hefty cost (which is what that article was talking about), but if there is no reason to create a new drug then why is he doing so? That too me sounds like a very poor/highly unethical business decision. It's like trying to reinvent the wheel. And for the record, I'm not trying to suck this asshole's pharma dick and I don't support his decision.

[Gez]

the_miano said:

I understand that research and development along with FDA regulations comes with a hefty cost (which is what that article was talking about)

Yeah, sure, in a libertarian paradise there wouldn't be any sort of regulation on new drugs. They'd go straight to marketing, and the customers would be there to beta test. And the invisible hand of the free market would do the rest: if the drug works and is safe, the customers would survive to buy more! It's not like drugs is a domain where complications can take decades to appear, and it's not like the results can be horrific.

Really, if there weren't these pesky FDA regulations, and all these long studies to perform before human testing is even allowed, things would be so much better! Drugs would be cheaper, and there would be so much more variety. Safer? No, but who cares about safety when you can have ~~~~FREEDOMS~~~~?

[dg93]

Gez said:

Yeah, sure, in a libertarian paradise there wouldn't be any sort of regulation on new drugs. They'd go straight to marketing, and the customers would be there to beta test. And the invisible hand of the free market would do the rest: if the drug works and is safe, the customers would survive to buy more! It's not like drugs is a domain where complications can take decades to appear, and it's not like the results can be horrific.

Really, if there weren't these pesky FDA regulations, and all these long studies to perform before human testing is even allowed, things would be so much better! Drugs would be cheaper, and there would be so much more variety. Safer? No, but who cares about safety when you can have ~~~~FREEDOMS~~~~?

You do realize the FDA has driven up the costs of health care, right? The FDA isn't perfect nor are they without sin. It shouldn't have to take fucking years to approve of a drug.

From the libertarian website: We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

Good job FDA....

[j4rio]

the_miano said:

What is wrong with the current drug Daraprim? I understand that research and development along with FDA regulations comes with a hefty cost (which is what that article was talking about), but if there is no reason to create a new drug then why is he doing so? That too me sounds like a very poor/highly unethical business decision. It's like trying to reinvent the wheel.

There is no perfect drug. Every single drug has pros and cons. Eating a few more pills of paracetamol than recommended dose will mercilessly murder you. The same pros and cons apply to this drug - it's old, obscure, toxoplasma is widely resistant to it and it would have fallen into oblivion ages ago were it not for its unique property to treat malaria patients with immune system diseases like aids, which makes this drug special... well, sort of, as long as those patients don't have pyrimethamine resistant toxoplasma, which would probably suck. Hundreds of drugs from the 60's will never find a single usage in modern medicine because of less risky alternatives. There are dozens of other available malaria treatments, but they are unsuitable for these cases and all of them have their own pros and cons to consider before beginning any treatment. Most of these drugs are becoming slowly but surely obsolete, including the most commonly used ones, simply because of slowly developing protozoal resistance to them.

It shouldn't have to take fucking years to approve of a drug.

Yes it should. It prevents cases like this potentially happenning to whole populations. Or this. Or, as above mentioned, this.

For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

If you dug up in actual sciencey stuff, you would find out propranolol wasn't the first antihypertensive and is rarely used in modern medicine because of safer alternatives. So that claim is 100% bollocks. In around the time of 60's, I'm sure a little bit of reserpine would do the job just as good, well if we disregard the possible side effects of it, like suicidal tendencies and depression.

[dg93]

j4rio said:

There is no perfect drug. Every single drug has pros and cons. Eating a few more pills of paracetamol than recommended dose will mercilessly murder you. The same pros and cons apply to this drug - it's old, obscure, toxoplasma is widely resistant to it and it would have fallen into oblivion ages ago were it not for its unique property to treat malaria patients with immune system diseases like aids, which makes this drug special... well, sort of, as long as those patients don't have pyrimethamine resistant toxoplasma, which would probably suck. Hundreds of drugs from the 60's will never find a single usage in modern medicine because of less risky alternatives. There are dozens of other available malaria treatments, but they are unsuitable for these cases and all of them have their own pros and cons to consider before beginning any treatment. Most of these drugs are becoming slowly but surely obsolete, including the most commonly used ones, simply because of slowly developing protozoal resistance to them.

Of course. I agree there is no "perfect drug" and depending on a person's health a certain drug may cause adverse effects which can be fatal.

j4rio said:

Yes it should. It prevents cases like this potentially happenning to whole populations. Or this. Or, as above mentioned, this.

There are pros and cons to the FDA drug approval process. Back in the 1980's during the AIDS epidemic, the FDA was accused of unnecessarily prolonging the approval of certain medications to help patients suffering from HIV and other diseases. They were also accused of prolonging the approval of some cancer treatments to people. Without the prolonged waiting period of some of these drugs, thousands of lives could have been potentially saved. I believe as a result from public outrage, the FDA implemented an expedited drug approval program for people with serious life threatening diseases such as cancer and AIDS.

j4rio said:

If you dug up in actual sciencey stuff, you would find out propranolol wasn't the first antihypertensive and is rarely used in modern medicine because of safer alternatives. So that claim is 100% bollocks. In around the time of 60's, I'm sure a little bit of reserpine would do the job just as good, well if we disregard the possible side effects of it, like suicidal tendencies and depression.

Interesting, I'll look into that more. Do you know the probability of someone actually experiencing those side effects just by taking the drug? I remember the pharmacist I used to work for told me that certain side effects aren't always directly attributed to the drug itself.

[j4rio]

the_miano said:

There are pros and cons to the FDA drug approval process. Back in the 1980's during the AIDS epidemic, the FDA was accused of unnecessarily prolonging the approval of certain medications to help patients suffering from HIV and other diseases. They were also accused of prolonging the approval of some cancer treatments to people.

During the approval process of new drugs sick people are given the option to test these new drugs, if there are any such drugs in clinical testing available. It's a part of FDA process.

the_miano said:

Do you know the probability of someone actually experiencing those side effects just by taking the drug? I remember the pharmacist I used to work for told me that certain side effects aren't always directly attributed to the drug itself.

Of course, lots of possible side effects pop up despite dosing properly. There are numerous factors coming in play, many of which are completely unpredictable with 1 in millions probability. The most common problem is allergic reaction to drugs, which is also completely unpredictable.

[Doomkid]

Now that the price has gone back down, I'm more mad at the fact that dipshits like that have the millions of dollars and positions of power they do and they don't even know how to properly price hike + PR to get everyone on your side AND be a greedy fuck all at the same time.

Raise it from $13.50 to about $20 - First things first it's not even double the price so people will be easy to persuade.. But secondly you can feed them the "we need to do this increase to make back what the acquisition costed us" and pair it with the same "funds will go towards research and development of better, more effective drugs" line that he tried to feed everyone and BAM, consumers won't be too miffed because the price hike is fairly subtle, all the while the company gets to rake in the extra cash so the need for greed is filled.

Fucking hell, dirty capitalists who don't even know how to be dirty capitalists, I swear.. Fucking rookie, to be an evil greedy fuck you have to convincingly pretend you aren't one.

[Reisal]

Man tried to explain himself in an article in my local newspaper, fuck him and fuck his company.

I'm pretty sure people will get their medicine from another source now because of this.

[Cupboard]

ITT: everyone realizes pharmaceutical companies are still drug dealers

[Pure Hellspawn]

A huge blunder in my opinion. Things such as price raising and speeding have something known as a magnitude . The faster you speed, the more likely a cop will notice and pull you over. The higher you raise your prices, the more people will notice, and start hating you in addition to stop buying from you,

No amount of explanation can undo what he has done. Not sure if it's because of greed or sociopathy or whatever, but he is garbage.