' Pharma Bro'
Bloomberg:

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.

YES HE SHOULD for about 9+10=21 years dead meme

One doesn't get arrested for a period of time. One is arrested, tried, and sentenced. So the question ought to have been, how long a sentence will X receive.

this is true. I hope the creep gets the maximum possible sentence.

He certainly seems an awful kind of guy. I only paid scant attention to the proceedings but that fact became crystal clear.

It's for this

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]

he became the most hated man in America. But then, as luck would have it, Donald Trump was elected and snatched the crown off Shkreli's head, and wears it proudly.

What do you think about his explanation for raising drug price? He said Deraprim (hope the spelling is right) is a rare disease drug, and since those drugs are rarely used, they need to be expensive in order to be able to fund the research. He has also said that 60% of the people got the drug for free, and those were all the people who needed it but couldn't afford it. For the other 40%, insurance was paying for it.

That explanation does initially make sense to me. Did he leave anything out?

they need to be expensive in order to be able to fund the research — Agustino

What research? The drug has been available since 1953. Toxoplasmosis (a brain infection) is not a communion disease, but not exactly rare, either. (Cat feces is a common source.) Generally it occurs in immunocompromised people (AIDS, transplant patients, other causes). It's also used on certain intestinal parasites (single celled parasites, not worms).

Burroughs Wellcome (now part of GlaxoSmithKline) charged a great deal for AZT (azidothymodine) in the 1980s. BW didn't invent the drug--it was a failed cancer compound. Was it very difficult to manufacture? I don't know -- but the price of the drug seemed to have been set on the basis of how greatly an effective drug was desired, more than anything else. As it happens, AZT wasn't all that effective, and at the dosages used, had severe side effects. (It's still used, but in combination with other anti-vitals, at lower concentrations.)

This new anti-inflammatory drug being tried out for heart disease which also seems to work on certain kinds of lung cancer--canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody--is priced at $200,000 a year. My understanding (very small) of monoclonal antibody drugs is that they are very complicated to manufacture, and generally years of research has been done before they are brought out. Maybe at this point it is justified.

You might not be taking any medications regularly (you are still a young guy) and you certainly aren't buying medicines in the United States. Most drugs sold in the US are sold at a much higher price point than they are in Europe, for instance. Why? Because our terminally fucked up health-care financing system allows drug companies to charge the highest possible price the market will bear. Most country's health financing systems aren't that fucking dumb (to use the technical term for it).

Cat feces is a common source — Bitter Crank

Reminder to self: Use scoop from now on and wash hands afterwards.

Good idea. But if you are immunocompromised (like when the cops catch one at a very inconvenient moment) best to have somebody else do it. Airborne particles.

Toxoplasmosis (a brain infection) is not a communion disease, but not exactly rare, either. — 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.

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.

The guy does come off as a dick and very arrogant, but if you listen to some of his more peaceful and intelligent interviews where he doesn't show off and act all knowing, then it does seem he has an argument.

As I understand it his company essentially held a monopoly on the drug, 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. I'm fairly certain that Lipitor's price is valued through several pharmaceuticals, not just one. If there were just one pharmaceutical producing Lipitor then perhaps that'd jack the price up for pure profit, as Shkreli did.

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.

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

Might 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.

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

Sometimes new drugs just aren't needed. For instance, syphillis (Treponema palladium) is still treated with penicillin, after 70+ years of use. For some reason Treponema palladium just didn't develop immunity to penicillin. Of course, some people are allergic to penicillin, and other drugs (antibiotics) are employed.

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. The FDA also said that the drug is toxic at a level close to the therapeutic window -- which is not all that unusual. Overdoses can be fatal. It may increase the likelihood of cancers, but that was in patients who had taken the drug for quite a while (2 years) and mice. Normally the drug would be taken for a matter of weeks, with dosage reduced over time.

My thought is that Shkreli's motivation was purely venal.

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? These are just some of the many questions behind raising the price of the drug.

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

The drug was introduced in 1953. It's patent would have expired several times over. It has been, by definition, generic for quite a while. The demand for the drug was probably stable, (with increasing demand in the 1980s and 90s because of AIDS. But then, after 1995, the demand would have declined again).

there should be research to produce better drugs — Agustino

There should. Sure. But one of the problems with diseases like toxoplasmosis, fungal diseases in particular, and some others is that the biology of the disease agents (fungi, for example) are just too similar to our own to be wiped out easily. Any drug that kills an internal fungal infection is likely to make the patient sicker, at least for a time, because what the drug is aiming for in the fungus also operates in all of our cells.

The drug that can kill a virus, a cancer, a bacteria, a fungus, or something else selectively, without screwing up everything else, is really wonderful. Penicillin, for instance, kills the syphilis bacteria with out bothering us. (It used to do the same thing for gonorrhea, but now Neisseria gonorrhoeae is resistant to several different types of antibiotics, and is occasional untreatable.)

The following from Wikipedia's article on Daraprim:

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).[]

The disparity is shocking, a testament to the massive extortion (your money or your life) Big Pharma is able to legally exert in the US Market. Importing drugs such as this into the US is illegal, because the FDA has not approved their safety.

The issue isn't Shkreli. The issue is that the same shit he did goes on every day in the pharma world. He just got into the spotlight and seems to like being the villain.

Wigga. But, seriously, what a man-child.

As I understand it his company essentially held a monopoly on the drug — Buxtebuddha

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.

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

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.

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, he very likely is a hollow moral wretch, but we're discussing the wrongness of just this one act of raising price.

Might 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

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 :P

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

Is it possible that toxoplasmosis (usually in HIV patients I suppose) is treated most of the time in conjunction with other potent drugs?

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.

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

People would be harmed. The drug is used in other countries to treat malaria (rare in the US at this point) and other parasitical diseases.

Under the kind of capitalism we have--somewhat regulated, somewhat moderated, somewhat limited in greed--companies are not entitled to unreasonable profits -- like profits from uninhibited gouging.

Martin Shkreli, 'Pharma Bro', cries in court as he is sentenced to seven years for hedge fund fraud

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-10/martin-shkreli-pharma-bro-sentenced-to-seven-years-in-prison/9534776

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...

well, yeah. I don’t have very strong feelings about it but I did remember there had been a thread so thought we might as well all read the closing credits :-)

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

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.

It is against the law for a CEO or administrator to create a prejudice for the company he runs in his own personal favor. So, say you own 100% of the shares in a company, and you are also CEO. Say you get one of the clients to pay you directly, as a sole trader (for example). Technically, you've done something illegal, since being the CEO or administrator is what allowed you to secure that contract, and yet, in your duty as administrator, you should have secured it for the company, not for you personally. In normal circumstances, nothing happens - because who would report you? But if you get in the wrong books of some people, then you may get in trouble even for something like this, as silly as it is. The law is often crooked.

Interesting Trivia:

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.

As I was saying in another thread, mental illness seems quite common amongst entrepreneurs, despite popular culture about it.

I doubt there was any conspiracy here. It's common knowledge the American justice system is at best very inconsistent in its application, so it's important to stack the odds as much in your favor as you can. 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).

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

Did Musk commit securities fraud?

Did Musk commit securities fraud? — Michael

No, but securities fraud isn't the only wrongdoing a CEO can do.

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

I agree.

This is what happens when you upset the wrong people in government:



:rofl:

:rofl: — Agustino

How is that funny?