Martin Shkreli is fascinating

[Exian]

Perhaps it was cheaper to buy the name rather than come up with a generic equal? Perhaps that it was a dormant drug in low demand for so long, acted as a sort of entrance barrier assuring Turing that, even though it wasn't under patent, they could effectively have the monopoly. Even now, nothing is stopping another company from coming up with the generic version and forcing the prices down. Although, Shkreli said they knew going in that they would lose money... hmm.

[Mermaid]

Perhaps it was cheaper to buy the name rather than come up with a generic equal? Perhaps that it was a dormant drug in low demand for so long, acted as a sort of entrance barrier assuring Turing that, even though it wasn't under patent, they could effectively have the monopoly. Even now, nothing is stopping another company from coming up with the generic version and forcing the prices down. Although, Shkreli said they knew going in that they would lose money... hmm.

That's the missing piece. Why would he invest in a drug that doesn't make any money?

[abaris]

That's the missing piece. Why would he invest in a drug that doesn't make any money?

Well, maybe that's the answer.

While the 32-year-old has earned a rare level of infamy for his brazenness in business and his personal life, what he was charged with had nothing to do with skyrocketing drug prices. He is accused of repeatedly losing money for investors and lying to them about it, illegally taking assets from one of his companies to pay off debtors in another.

And the drug is hardly unpopular.

He became famous within a certain world but entered public consciousness after he raised the price more than 55-fold for Daraprim in September from $13.50 per pill to $750. It is the preferred treatment for a parasitic condition known as toxoplasmosis, which can be deadly for unborn babies and patients with compromised immune systems including those with HIV or cancer. His company, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG, bought the drug, moved it to a closed distribution system and instantly drove the price into the stratosphere.

At a Forbes summit in New York this month, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, he said if he could have done it over, “I probably would have raised the price higher,” adding, “My investors expect me to maximize profits.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-m...ies-fraud/

[Minimalist]

Did he, though?

You're forgetting his smirking performance before congress.

[rexbeccarox]

Perhaps it was cheaper to buy the name rather than come up with a generic equal? Perhaps that it was a dormant drug in low demand for so long, acted as a sort of entrance barrier assuring Turing that, even though it wasn't under patent, they could effectively have the monopoly. Even now, nothing is stopping another company from coming up with the generic version and forcing the prices down. Although, Shkreli said they knew going in that they would lose money... hmm.

That's the missing piece. Why would he invest in a drug that doesn't make any money?

I've been thinking about that. It could be one or more of the following and then some:

-He's really young, and in the Vice interview, he seemed surprisingly naive. Maybe someone with interest advised him to buy it, or maybe he made the decision without any advice at all. He seems arrogant enough either way.

-He really does want to help people, as he states repeatedly in the interview, and he thought he got his numbers right when he crunched them for insured people (and maybe he did), offered them for free for whomever isn't insured, and upped the premium for the major corporations so they'd have to bed the cost. He obviously could be lying about this stuff, but if he's not, it kinda goes back to the possibly arrogant naivete.

I think he's found himself between a rock and a hard place: either he loses tons of money by giving in to this fiasco, or he sticks to his guns and convinces the general public he's not some shyster. I'm kind of rooting for him that he can do the latter and start a revolution to better the pharma industry, because if he's telling the truth and really only trying to do good by people, he's on that path.

(I do think he's a total ass, though. Seriously: who acts that way?)

[Rev. Rye]

The fascinating thing about him is he doesn't hide anything. Ask him a question and he'll answer it, no matter how ugly the truth. I think that's where he's getting all the ugly press from, but it's and breath of fresh air to me.

Except when it comes to Congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPIQ_gyiHag


And then he goes to Twitter and laughs at them for questioning him.

Honestly, he reminds me a lot of Harry Lime, the character from The Third Man who sells watered-down penicillin for money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPAsssli3E

[bennyboy]

As I said before, he could flip the script and become a hero, or he could finally figure out how to kill Batman.

He could only become a hero, if he did what he promised. But that's out of his hands anyway.

Yeah, it probably is.  It looks like he's out of the pharmaceutical company now, anyway.


--edit--
re his character: He's clearly a narcissistic fuck. However, he's also smart-- he runs circles around almost everyone, and turns complete opposition into a kind of deflated agreement in a matter of minutes. I don't believe him when he says he's a warrior for the good, and just wants to save as many people as possible. But who cares? Almost everybody, in every walk of life, spins their bullshit into a plausible narrative to try and look better than the greedy, selfish fuckers they are. And that includes everyone in this thread (myself also).

However, I DO believe almost everything he's saying about the company, about the pharmaceutical industry, about hospitals and about the big insurance companies. . . and about the disingenuity of the media. So overall, I doubt I'd like to know him, but I'm glad that I have the chance to see him discuss these issues. No matter HOW much of a dick he is, the framework he operates in is a million times worse, and him being so public does us all the service of bringing that into the limelight.

[bennyboy]

Did he, though?

You're forgetting his smirking performance before congress.

He's explained his smirking.  He's said he's been a puppet for political purposes, as witnessed by the timing of his arrest for securities fraud.  He's said the media are targeting him because he's taken such an anti-media stance.  He's said (and the video explicitly talked about it) that it's not normal to bring in people whose laywers have already indicated they intead to plead the 5th-- clearly, they brought him in anyway to make him plead the 5th in front of cameras, and so the judge could lecture him in public.  That reeks of politics, and that makes me think that pretty much everything he said is spot-on.

So he sees it as a kind of parade, and being the narcissistic guy that he obviously is, that means two things: 1) it reinforces his opinion of how important he is; 2) it lets him take the high-road position.  So it's actually a pretty good day for him-- I'm surprised he managed to resist rubbing his palms together and cackling.

[thool]

This boils down to money. Pharmaceutical companies exist to make money, they lobby so that lawmakers get bills signed that benefit them, their boards of directors exist to make As Much Money As Possible in order to make their stock worth more (shareholder value), insurance companies exist to act as a buffer between consumers and suppliers and skim "administrative fees" as they move money around and deny claims, insurance companies likewise lobby for legislation that favors their existence, most companies and up paying into their employees' health care to make it more affordable as part of an incentive package, and the consumers are left powerless to exert low-demand pressure on the market to help drive prices down.

I don't have a solution, but as long as our health is held hostage, consumers are at a disadvantage.