Can you provide more insight or explaination? I'll give some of mine. Granted, he's being portrayed as some stereotypical sociopath. But I don't see the connection with industry knowledge being a requirement for a good or any private equity firm. Warren Buffet does not need to know chocolate or insurance, just managers he can trust to deliver good chocolate or insurance.
Oh I totally agree. But that's what caused him to make this mess - his only goal is to squeeze money out of companies without any regard to the damage done to employees/customers/public/etc, and that's what he tried to do here. But medicine isn't viewed by the public or politicians in the same way as chocolate or insurance, and he really knows nothing about his industry. You can go screw over a chocolate factory or jack up prices on chocolate and no one's going to care. Doesn't necessarily work so well in medicine - especially when you then go on TV and act like a jackass. Even worse when you have a history of screwing over your own previous company to try to cover up your losses to previous hedge fund investors. This guy seems like the ultimate scammer - screw over some people, run away, and try again. This is his 3rd business venture, and he's left a wake of destruction at this previous 2 (hedge fund, previous pharma company).
To clarify - this is why I think the "we need to spend on research" aspect is garbage. The guy doesn't know anything or have any interest in about research or drugs or anything else except figuring out how to squeeze money out of an inefficiency. The odds of him being interested in actually spending profits on research and developing a new and interesting drug seem really low.
Deck, how do pharmas, especially smaller ones, recoup the R&D costs without making people pay? Money has to come from somewhere, and if R&D is not happen in your pharma, you might as well sell your company asap. False. The last innovation on their R&D came specifically from him. Can't specify. Different than the ER. In the ER, there isn't a patient hospital communication: Turing and patients communicate beforehands. This is the aspects of having a small business and small consumer base; micromanaging is more efficient. That is nearly the mentality of all monopolies. This is why monopolies are frowned upon everywhere. Not all biotechs are the same though; hoping to get bought out by a big pharma has risk. That is a lot of money under that can happen in the meantime, although aquisitions are very common in the industry, sure. Enough. I can tell you that. The profit numbers are not large enough to attract the big pharmas because of the consumer base, so nothing has happened.
I don't like how all this personal information of the guy is published and he is turned into some kind of villain overnight. Everywhere I go I see people in comments posting death threats. While others who have probably done worse things are admired. The problem is systematic not personal. He is not some kind of personification of devil. He is a prime example of greed yes but all this ridicule on completely personal information like his dating habits and what games he plays is out of order.
Doesn't justify public shaming of highly personal information in the media. How is that not evil too? Or posting death threats?
I like major's analogy of the chocolate factory. The disruption caused there sorts itself out over time, winners and losers emerge, the market rewards and punishes and we carry on. Some countries treat medicine and drugs like utilities. Recognizing that they are different from other commodities and regulating the price. This is why. And I think this particular guy's background is key in evaluating the business plan of this company and their motives. ....and jb -- thanks for keeping the conversation going.
why? If that CEO had a family with kids and puppies and went to church every sunday, gave scholarship and money to charity would it make his actions less evil? His greed less? Would it help the people suffering from acute toxoplasmosis knowing that a standup dude was the cause they couldn't afford their treatment anymore? Why do you need the character to judge the actions themselves? The motive is apparent => greed and money. Or you think that this guy is a sadist that enjoys people's suffering and that's why he raised the price? So the CEO of that company that doubled the price of colchicine- a heart drug- if he's a good guy, shouldn't be condemned? Because he doesn't look like being a sociopath?
A good guy can also do bad things. Even google is sometimes evil. But a guy's background is relevant if we're discussion why what he's done may not be as bad as it seems.
So this issue, that you say is systemic, shouldn't be directed at the individuals who partake in it? That makes no sense. If the issue is truly systemic, and I believe it is, we should be doing everything in our power to publicly name and shame these guys. There will never be an incentive against this type of behavior if the public takes your "everyone else is doing it so don't single me out" stance. This guy looked at the WHO's essential medicines list as a vulture capitalist. It doesn't get any more shameful or evil than that. He deserves every bit of negativity thrown his way.
I don't see how it's not as bad if he's character is good. Maybe you doubt the motive? Because I don't. In any case. Whether he's background was perfect or not. And won't take away from the people's suffering in either case. individuals => pharma companies. I think all this , in fact don't help in solving the issue. It makes it look like the issue is caused by a person, a sociopath, instead of illustrating that this is a more common than we are aware model that many companies partake in. Companies that may not look as shady and not having people like him as their head. But their actions remain UNJUSTIFIABLE the same as this guys' are. They try to make the problem about the person, and not the system. Debate and shame the system not the character in the story. I don't have trouble with the negativity in general. I am shocked and outraged myself. BUT I have serious problems with the extent. You can condemn in a respectful way that has to do witht he actions only. And by respectful I don't mean to the guy I mean to yourself. When you stoop to such levels you do something evil yourself. AND you reinforce the notion that public shaming is a social acceptable behaviour.
Can you give us any info in what this breakthrough might've been? It is very hard to judge Shkreli's background or the rationals behind the massive price increase without information like that. Perhaps I am missing something here. I understand differences in pricing and as an owner and operator of a small business all the time. We even do some probono work without charge. That said though if we do too much free or very work with very limited fees we would go out of business very quickly. As a small business we lack the resources to absorb losses like larger businesses. In a case like this it seems like giving out the drug for free beforehand while gouging others seems more problematic as the information is widely distributed. What's to stop those who are being gouged from changing there policies so they can get the drug for free or drastically reduced costs and cut even deeper into Turing's profits? Once again though how much profit is enough for R&D and as others have noted this is an existing drug with a long history. Also as a known drug why aren't there others looking into research into this drug already for other potential benefits from it or other ways to improve the effectiveness of it? I don't think most people would be upset about this if the price increase of the drug hadn't been so overwhelming. I think if Turing had raised the drug price 200% the arguments Shkreli has put forward would've been more acceptable. The sudden 5000% increase with vague reasoning is what is causing the controversy.
That response does not make sense to me. Enough what? The 32 year old former hedge fund manager started the company in February 2015. I don't see any indication that there is any R&D or marketing costs associated with this product. No indication that there is any actual R&D or what the increase in the price of the drug is for.
the eligibility for a reduced price will depend on a fairly strict evaluation of ability to pay. Many people can pay -- but with hardship. A $50K hit for what should have been a $1K hit is significant. (I think I read $50K as the treatment cost). Most people on this board could pay $50K if they had to. Doesn't justify this jump. Plus sticking it to the insurance companies (and medicare) does bite us all in the end. (and I think it's important to emphasize that they're not recouping R&D costs here. possibly they're generating funds for new R&D, but that's quite different).
What some of y'all have to realize, and I guess on the personality bashing (i.e. the ones criticizing him playing League, or something similar), if you were brought out in the public, the people could sure tear you, and I apart too. I am looking beyond the act here. Let's just keep that in perspective. Love the topic. But I really should stop. If this is the case, start boycotting all pharmas. Because none of the stuff they do are for the people receiving medication. It is not the nicest industry. I am no saying that the employees aren't nice; i.e. the R&D people I'm sure are good people. But the persons calling the shots, of the big pharmas, are a bigger problem then the small pharmas. I'll repeat again: Human life will not be lost in this endeavor. I hope you understand why I cannot give you the breakthrough, of an unpatented, unpublished step forward for a product. In theory. Dropping form 13.50 to 1 dollar, for say, 50%, keeping it at 13.50 for 25%, and "gouging" the other 25% will give you more revenue. I believe that is the strategy. I believe I may have hit the point previously about why insurance companies wouldn't change their policies, if that was what you are asking? Not everybody sees the potential in a drug. Like I said before, even if it is a known drug, large pharmas didn't see it worthwhile to look into it, and it is hard for a small pharma to get these opportunities; 1) getting the money 2) noticing the potential 3) actually being able to R&D 4) having necessary infrastructure. Turing has already received massive starting income for R&D in this development. The profit will just help it along, and be a part of a sales pitch for more investment. As in there is verifiable and tangible R&D potential that has already received investment. All R&D has costs...? If I am not explaining myself well, call me out :grin: I am not proofreading myself. Funds for new R&D in this disease field, yes. But you aren't paying the 50k, the insurance is. This is what Deck correctly pointed out in his reasoning for his analysis. Don't quote me on this, but I believe that some of the media outlets do not have the actual price tag reported correctly. Quick responses again. Didn't proofread.
I went to Turing's website. This is their "Pipeline" message (which I assume they meant to be R&D): The page features two drugs which have previously been manufactured, and no mention of toxoplasmosis. Not buying it. I saw the Bloomberg interview earlier - also not convinced. If he is genuinely trying to raise capital for R&D by increasing the drug's price, then he did a poor job of communicating that during the Bloomberg interview. During the Bloomberg interview, he first talks about needing to turn a profit, then about the ownership history of the drug, and then states that it sells less than its competitors. He does however talk about all the non-manufacturing costs of distribution and FDA, and also talks about "patient services". However, at no point in the interview does he state what the reason to raise the price is, other than to turn a profit. He is also not technically skilled. I would at least expect to hear some financial jargon (cash flow, balance sheets, etc) and not something like "not really making a profit". But that's just me. Also, he is relenting and lowering the price. That tells me all I need to know. Bloomberg interview: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-21/why-turing-increased-price-of-daraprim-over-500-
I don't understand what you are trying to say about their blanket statement. Every company has one that makes them seem like the shining light of society. Of course he is relenting. He just got ****ted on by the entire public. Companies like BP or Exxon can handle. Now he is "relenting", and the new story disappears. It ain't gonna be much of a relenting. The affects of this news story go beyond the money: Turing has been rejected from career fairs, and canceled from ones they were confirmed to go to, for example. For a small business, they need to recruit at these places; not many people have heard of Turing casually. The guy's not articulate on interviews. That is a known aspect to anybody who knows him. I don't think you are wrong that he wants to make a profit as well, but it's delayed gratification to make more profits down the line, more so.
They raised $90 million dollars in financing. Apparently that wasn't enough. I hear it is not unusual for such companies to go decades without being profitable. Not sure what makes them different. According to their website, they only have the marketing rights to this particular drug. Speaking of knowing this guy - he is being sued for something like $65 million dollars by a former company. Has a history of rude, vulgar and immature Tweets. Considering that history plus the realization that he is not technically or socially gifted - I see what he did. So did a whole lot of other people.
