Drug's 5,000% price increase, where's the justification?

CREATIVE!11 · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:29

valkynaz said:
And that 4790K you ordered cost about $2 to produce. Lets all jump on Intel for their 17000% markup.

Oh my god.... I don't even know where to begin with this statement.

sedm1000 · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:34

SpeedFreak said:
$5m in revenues, 100 pill treatment, $7.50 a pill. Circa 7,000 dependents and he claims half are given pills for free or for $1.

At 100% conversion that's $260m in revenues, most of which would be profit. He needs about a 10% conversion rate of the existing user base in order to recoup the entire investment in 1 year.

There is the pharma industry hard at work for all to see. In the above charts R&D is matched by marketing spend, surely something is badly wrong?

You should check out his last company...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/arlenew...artin-shkreli-for-65m-his-reply-preposterous/

He's taking the Donald Trump approach to fundraising, no such thing as bad publicity. Re-package the drug as a higher cost version with a large market and he'll exit on the next round of funding with a >5x return on his initial investment.

If they end up with a better drug, then cool. I suspect that his main motivation is to make a lot of money spoofing a dumb investment culture in biotech. Might not end well.

valkynaz · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:37

CREATIVE!11 said:
Oh my god.... I don't even know where to begin with this statement.

Where to begin? That the markup is justified due to the billions spent in R&D and overheads for the thousands of people and different departments present in a company as big as Intel.

People will just go "oh it only cost a few pennies to make" well raw materials aren't the only cost of manufacturing.

scorza · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:38

valkynaz said:
Where to begin? That the markup is justified due to the billions spent in R&D and overheads for the thousands of people and different departments present in a company as big as Intel.

People will just go "oh it only cost a few pennies to make" well raw materials aren't the only cost of manufacturing.

What R&D? The R&D for this particular drug was done 62 years ago by a different country.

valkynaz · 22 Sep 2015 at 20:10

scorza said:
What R&D? The R&D for this particular drug was done 62 years ago by a different country.

Where do you think the money for future R&D comes from?

CREATIVE!11 · 22 Sep 2015 at 20:12

valkynaz said:
Where to begin? That the markup is justified due to the billions spent in R&D and overheads for the thousands of people and different departments present in a company as big as Intel.

Lol ok rummy.....You're either seriously delusional or a troll.

Billions spent on R&D for a 62 year old drug he used to corner the market.

Lmao... my sides.

valkynaz said:
Where do you think the money for future R&D comes from?

Yeah... i'm sure we'll see "future" R&D from this guy.

lol lol........

lol

Caged · 22 Sep 2015 at 20:26

Cosimo said:
Worth watching this before you judge:

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

That video just makes me think "**** him". I guess that was the opposite of his intentions.

scorza · 22 Sep 2015 at 20:31

valkynaz said:
Where do you think the money for future R&D comes from?

Private investment or loans would be preferable alternatives to price gouging a life-saving medicine.

Danthus · 22 Sep 2015 at 20:55

He OKCupid profile is class.

spends a lot of his time thinking about 'human suffering, investments and family'

Freefaller · 22 Sep 2015 at 21:39

scorza said:
I don't mind people making money, but I do think they kinda have to earn it. If they'd taken a risk and invested in researching this drug then that's one thing, this is them just buying the rights to something that someone else took a risk on 62 years ago and increasing the price because they know their customers are literally dead if they don't buy it. It might be legal but it's not moral and I say it shouldn't be legal.

I agree entirely.

valkynaz · 22 Sep 2015 at 21:40

CREATIVE!11 said:
Lol ok rummy.....You're either seriously delusional or a troll.

Billions spent on R&D for a 62 year old drug he used to corner the market.

Lmao... my sides.

Yeah... i'm sure we'll see "future" R&D from this guy.

lol lol........

lol

You clearly didn't read my post properly as you would have seen the billions I mentioned was in reference to companies such as Intel.

And as for future R&D, the likelihood is the company will have expand its product range into other pharmaceutical products or more effective drugs it currently produces in order to remain competitive and survive in the market through product diversification.

scorza said:
Private investment or loans would be preferable alternatives to price gouging a life-saving medicine.

As much as you think life saving medicine should be sold at cost price/minimal profit at the end of a day it's a business and it's purpose is to turn a profit. Just because they operate in the pharmaceutical market does not mean they have some moral obligation to hand out pills as cheap as possible.

SPG · 22 Sep 2015 at 21:54

He needs to be turned into a cripple, disgusting unpleasant scumbag of a man.

Tefal · 22 Sep 2015 at 23:08

scorza said:
Private investment or loans would be preferable alternatives to price gouging a life-saving medicine.

Lol possibly the most retarded statement in a while.

OK so they take a big loan to pay for the R&D of their next drug sell it at cost/low price...oh wait now they can't pay back the loan

Tefal · 22 Sep 2015 at 23:11

stopper said:
Cannabis taken correctly is a life saving subtance,.

what life threatening condition does cannabis treat?

And how does your "it's a plant!!" Agument hold up in the face of say poppies?

They're a pretty big medical crop and big money too. (Even legally)

Dj_Jestar · 23 Sep 2015 at 00:26

Tefal - how do you justify the 5,500% overnight increase in price? Now that a hedge fund manager owns the product - not a pharma company, a hedge fund. He has no interests in researching anything, let alone more medicines or pharmaceuticals, no interests even in the product itself. Certainly no interest in keeping it accessible to those who need it the most.

So, go on.. what justification does he, and price gouging in general, have?

Lets also remember he has exclusive rights to the proceeds of this product. There will not be any competition.

wildman · 23 Sep 2015 at 00:58

scorza said:
Private investment or loans would be preferable alternatives to price gouging a life-saving medicine.

lol the ignorance alone in this statement is priceless...............

you think a private investor is going to throw boats of cash into something that will yield no return.............. Yes that's exactly how it works, I'll secure billions in investment from private investors by promising them a place in heaven with Jesus and Allah right ???

Whether you all like it or not Pharmaceutical Companies are run for profit nor for saving lives. people just need to get their heads around that idea. If it was about saving lives then governments would invest in their own not for profit R&D. But governments full well know it simply can't be done without the muscle of massive PLC companies that are traded on stockmarkets.

if it was as easy as the average person on here thinks don't you think governments would be running their own massive research complexes and saving billions on their healthcare costs ?

wildman · 23 Sep 2015 at 01:02

Dj_Jestar said:
Tefal - how do you justify the 5,500% overnight increase in price? Now that a hedge fund manager owns the product - not a pharma company, a hedge fund. He has no interests in researching anything, let alone more medicines or pharmaceuticals, no interests even in the product itself. Certainly no interest in keeping it accessible to those who need it the most.

So, go on.. what justification does he, and price gouging in general, have?

Lets also remember he has exclusive rights to the proceeds of this product. There will not be any competition.

it wasn't a hedge fund that owned the product it was actually a biotech company that had a former hedge fund manager as it's CEO. They would easily justify it by saying they needed to raise capital for future pipeline R&D costs to ensure they could continue to provide further new innovative treatments to the market. You can't start R&D on a wing and prayer you need close to $2 billion for an NCE that you intend on taking through from discovery to phase 4 and commercialisation thereafter.

robin66 · 23 Sep 2015 at 01:38

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34332363

Monkeynut · 23 Sep 2015 at 01:40

Wait, if this drug is so old, how are generics not allowed?

Dj_Jestar · 23 Sep 2015 at 01:51

wildman said:
it wasn't a hedge fund that owned the product it was actually a biotech company that had a former hedge fund manager as it's CEO. They would easily justify it by saying they needed to raise capital for future pipeline R&D costs to ensure they could continue to provide further new innovative treatments to the market. You can't start R&D on a wing and prayer you need close to $2 billion for an NCE that you intend on taking through from discovery to phase 4 and commercialisation thereafter.

Turing Pharmaceuticals have just two products. This one, and Vecamyl™ - an antihypertensive drug. Oh and it was developed in the 1950s. The only thing that Turing Pharmaceuticals have done for "biotech" is to buy marketing rights of cheap drugs and gouge the prices.

Turing Pharmaceuticals is a hedge fund with "Pharmaceuticals" in the name.