Your article was about toxoplasmic encephalitis. As I said, there are other cures. Daraprim remains the best, yet also reasonably attainable. Shrekli is a scapegoat for "corruption," and his nonchalant attitude further fuels the public perception of that.
Yes, it is and specific to AIDS as well, which is the heart strings of the nation that are being pulled on to damn Shkreli. Don't see his attitude as nonchalant so much as well aware of what is being done and how. No matter what he says or shows for proof, BigP is going to have to come up with something legally solid as evidence to damn him, and they have nothing to date....so they are looking for it, or if necessary, they will create it...lol...and that is the problem.
The first question was designed as a tear jerker...single poor mother with AIDS who can't afford the medicine ....which is a total crock of shit. But, people buy into it like ninnies.
I agree completely. Several times in this thread I have mentioned how accessible Daraprim is. The major US media corporations spun it into a sensationalized story. But I don't blame them—it's their job. Keep the people riled up and on edge. Note the amount of negative stories spewing out of these companies and contrast it with the positive content.
Fair enough, it is their job, and shit sells...so...lol...fortunately there are independents that also publish the other side as well , and people that also ask the messy questions when it doesn't add up...in this case.. Shrekli is lousy at PR, but good at what he does. He did an excellent job of explaining what he is doing and why, it's odd how few seem to understand it.
For him, it's a win/win regardless of successful development of a better drug. And BigP resents the hell out of him for pulling that move...lol..
At the same time, baiting Big P and forcing the comparisons at how they do precisely the same thing and gouge even worse on drugs that are life time requirements for many people.
..LOL...And...he nailed the insurance companies at the same time.
You may find this very interesting..
.
When you have some time....watch it. Interested in your thoughts on it.
Shareholders are where his money came from since the beginning. Can you link something that elaborates that he has no interest in developing new drugs?
I never said he that he had no interest in developing drugs. I pointed out that he, himself said his rationale for the price increase was to maximize profits for shareholders. R&D was not his motivation for the price hike. He said that.
No pharmaceutical company puts a drug on the market without extensive testing. It is a long process,
Of course it is a long process. That’s not the point. The issue here is that there is no way of verifying if he has intentions to put out any drugs at all. The lack of any visibility of clinical programs is concerning.
This is not a new scheme that Shrekli invented. Small Biotech companies have been gaming the industry for years. Most fold before their "drugs" ever reach trial so they are in the clear. They mimic big pharma's R&D rationale for pricing schedules. The difference is big pharma has the infrastructure in place to support the R&D.
But again, that is not what the fraud investigation is about. Shrekli is facing fraud, not Turing. And since when have pharmaceutical companies been open about their R&D?
No one is suggesting that he share any R&D. The issue is that there is a lack of visibility of any research taking place.
Did Shrekli say it's bad we rely upon a 70-year-old drug to treat toxoplasmosis? Where?
"This drug is from the 1940s. We can make a better drug for this disease." He went on to say; 'We're spending tens of millions of dollars to make a better version of Daraprim that is more effective, less toxic. Daraprim is a very toxic drug, and these patients deserve a drug company that is turning a profit - a fair proit - and is also developing a drug that is better for them. They don't deserve a drug that is 70- years old. They deserve modern medicine that can cure toxoplasmosis quickly.' Here's the link
Btw: the medical community has been quite clear that Daraprim is highly effective.
This is redundant. I've already displayed that 50% of the users get the drug for a dollar, there's a pay scale for those within income brackets with insurance, and that special circumstances are made for those who find themselves in precarious situations.
Him being willing to give Daraprim away for a dollar is not the issue. But okay, let’s go with this. Can you explain how he's making a profit when the pricing schedule was formerly $13/pill and he is giving it away to those who can't pay for a dollar? Or more specifically, who is paying the market price for Daraprim thus offsetting these reduced rates? What are the impacts of this?
They aren't working on a new toxoplasmosis drug. You seem very misinformed.
You seem a little misinformed too. He very clearly claims they are as noted above but here's the link
By the way, he's not working on the next "Daraprim." He hiked up the price of Daraprim so that Turing can do research on a cure to AIDS. The man has several ideas that run along the line of what other pharmaceutical companies are investigating, but I feel you probably haven't listened to him much.
Do you honestly believe this 32 year-old hedge fund mgr is going to find a cure for AIDS? Really? You believe he has the know how, infrastructure and ability do that kind of research? And, considering all the time he spends making his Internet videos, when does he find the time to find the cure for AIDS?
"I never said he that he had no interest in developing drugs. I pointed out that he, himself said his rationale for the price increase was to maximize profits for shareholders. R&D was not his motivation for the price hike. He said that."
He said he was not interested in R&D? Further down you contradicted that. Yes...companies are obligated to their shareholders. It is how they are able to remain functioning, and get even more funding.
"Of course it is a long process. That’s not the point. The issue here is that there is no way of verifying if he has intentions to put out any drugs at all. The lack of any visibility of clinical programs is concerning.
This is not a new scheme that Shrekli invented. Small Biotech companies have been gaming the industry for years. Most fold before their "drugs" ever reach trial so they are in the clear. They mimic big pharma's R&D rationale for pricing schedules. The difference is big pharma has the infrastructure in place to support the R&D."
11/16/2015: Turing Initiates Dosing in Phase I Clinical Trial of TUR 004 for Epileptic Encephalopathies (this is a month before Shrekli was arrested)
01/12/2016: Turing Pharmaceuticals AG Announces Initiation of TUR 002 Clinical Trials
"No one is suggesting that he share any R&D. The issue is that there is a lack of visibility of any research taking place."
What? The FDA seems in the know.
10/23/2015: Turing Pharmaceuticals AG Announces FDA Acceptance of Investigational New Drug Application and Fast Track Designation for TUR 004
05/16/2016: Turing Pharmaceuticals AG Announces FDA Acceptance of Second Investigational New Drug Application for TUR 002 (Intranasal Ketamine)
"'This drug is from the 1940s. We can make a better drug for this disease.' He went on to say; 'We're spending tens of millions of dollars to make a better version of Daraprim that is more effective, less toxic. Daraprim is a very toxic drug, and these patients deserve a drug company that is turning a profit - a fair proit - and is also developing a drug that is better for them. They don't deserve a drug that is 70- years old. They deserve modern medicine that can cure toxoplasmosis quickly.' Here's the link"
Thanks. Apparently what they are working on is something called "TRP-004," but right now TUR 004 and TUR 002 are their main focuses, as those are the two drugs currently in clinical trial phases.
"Him being willing to give Daraprim away for a dollar is not the issue. But okay, let’s go with this. Can you explain how he's making a profit when the pricing schedule was formerly $13/pill and he is giving it away to those who can't pay for a dollar? Or more specifically, who is paying the market price for Daraprim thus offsetting these reduced rates? What are the impacts of this?"
I said he gives 50% of the drug away to people that cannot afford it. The other half of the people who get the drug are in most cases likely using insurance co-pay. Turing outlined exactly how they distribute the drug in November of last year.
Is the drug no longer being at a flat rate of $13 detrimental to some people? Of course. But if this funds the development of new drugs, I think this is a good thing.
"Do you honestly believe this 32 year-old hedge fund mgr is going to find a cure for AIDS? Really? You believe he has the know how, infrastructure and ability do that kind of research?"
Don't bring age into this—Newton was 33 when he published his Hypothesis of Light, a culmination of years of private research.
Shkreli clearly understands business, and if you've listened to him talk extensively about business or pharmaceuticals (I doubt you have giving your emanating distaste), you would know this. There is as of yet no cure for AIDS, and I think it'd be great to have another company looking at it from another angle.
You are quoting press releases from Turing's own website. You know how PR works right? The lack of any visibility of clinical programs is concerning.
As for the costing. It's not a simple formula of a dollar for pills for poor people. That's not how this business works. He has affectively created barriers for people obtaining the drug. Insurance companies will issue cheaper and less effective drugs to manage costs and Daraprim will be a last resort. This puts people's health at risk and was done for no reason but to turn a profit.
In an open letter to Turing, ISDA and HIVMA urged the company to rethink the new new pricing structure for the generic medicine, according to Healio.
'Under the current pricing structure, it is estimated that the annual cost of treatment for toxoplasmosis, for the pyrimethamine component alone, will be $336,000 for patients who weigh less than 60 kg and $634,500 for patients who weigh more than 60 kg,' they wrote.
The letter continued: 'This cost is unjustifiable for the medically vulnerable patient population in need of this medication and unsustainable for the health care system.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3246093/Drugs-boss-hiked-price-life-saving-AIDS-treatment-5-000-cent-tried-kidney-pills-vows-reduce-price-refuses-say-much.html#ixzz4CqiKXqxM
I would be less inclined to bring his age into this if he behaved like a credible adult and not a spoiled teenager.
I agree that he understands certain aspects of business but his lack of subtlety, nuance and people skills makes him far less brilliant than he projects. Price gouging is common practice in the pharmaceutical industry and everyone knows that. But he raised the costs by more than 5000% overnight. It was an unsavoury move that landed him in the spotlight and turned the public against him. That is never a good business strategy . It is now costing him millions in legal fees but he is infamous and that's what he seem to value the most. Had he been more savvy and less greedy he would have gone unnoticed and come out farther ahead financially in the end.