ForumGarden

Judging by social media, Martin Shkreli, the 32-year-old chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, may be the most hated man in America right now.

He's been called a "morally bankrupt sociopath", a "scumbag" a "garbage monster" and "everything that is wrong with capitalism." And those are some of the tamer comments.

Developed in the 50's.....................excuse me ladies......bastard.

Why is there not a law that allows drugs to run out of licence like the copy right laws ?

The guy is a total scum.

Bruv;1486685 wrote: Judging by social media, Martin Shkreli, the 32-year-old chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, may be the most hated man in America right now.

He's been called a "morally bankrupt sociopath", a "scumbag" a "garbage monster" and "everything that is wrong with capitalism." And those are some of the tamer comments.

Developed in the 50's.....................excuse me ladies......bastard.

Why is there not a law that allows drugs to run out of licence like the copy right laws ?
I thought there was. Surely it comes under the Patents laws.

The patent law has been applied. The drug has had just one manufacturer for decades.

It will take other producers a while to ramp up, but they will be out to take advantage of the price hike.

I just find it puzzling that it was apparently developed in the 50s, yet a U.S. patent only lasts for 20 years. Therefore it should have been open to the general market by the 70s.

FourPart;1486749 wrote: I just find it puzzling that it was apparently developed in the 50s, yet a U.S. patent only lasts for 20 years. Therefore it should have been open to the general market by the 70s.


It IS open to the general market, but no other company in the US had seen fit to produce it. It actually has a fairly narrow market, and most companies did not see it as profitable to produce, and the FDA had not approved any outside sources.

But now the pharmaceutical vultures will make a killing so to speak.

The pharmaceutical world finally has its own version of SCO.

spot;1486777 wrote: The pharmaceutical world finally has its own version of SCO.


Scottish Chamber Orchestra ?

Them too.

I was thinking originally of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80 ... troversies, purely in terms of the degree of perpetual public odium they attracted.

Well yes..........there was that too...of course..................the odium was perpetual alright............it became the wallpaper to my life........so much so I forgot all about that SCO.........obviously.

Bruv;1486797 wrote: Well yes..........there was that too...of course..................the odium was perpetual alright............it became the wallpaper to my life........so much so I forgot all about that SCO.........obviously.


If you watched less Celebrity Come Dancing you might manage to absorb a little news from one year to the next. SCO/Linux was second only to World War Two in its impact on modern-day civilization.







eta: If laying bait for rats was as easy as laying bait for you in a thread like this, they'd be extinct.

spot;1486782 wrote: Them too.

I was thinking originally of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80 ... troversies, purely in terms of the degree of perpetual public odium they attracted.


Ouch !!!

That was cruel..................Who do you think will win this year ?

If other Pharmaceutical companies have not seen fit to partake of the monopoly for a product that has been artificially inflated in price to their own ends by undercutting the price in order to create competition, is that really the fault of the one who inflates the prices. When there is no competition you can name your own price. Once others step in the market is dramatically changed. If the demand is there, and the potential is there to legally provide the supply for that demand, then where is the problem? Why is it not being done?

This isn't a matter of judging anyone one way or the other, it is simply a matter that I don't understand how come the situation is as it is. When computers first came on the market they cost a fortune, as there were only a very few manufacturers that made them. These days, there are so many suppliers that not only are they pretty much disposable, the quality is much higher too.

FourPart;1486803 wrote: If other Pharmaceutical companies have not seen fit to partake of the monopoly for a product that has been artificially inflated in price to their own ends by undercutting the price in order to create competition, is that really the fault of the one who inflates the prices. When there is no competition you can name your own price. Once others step in the market is dramatically changed. If the demand is there, and the potential is there to legally provide the supply for that demand, then where is the problem? Why is it not being done?

This isn't a matter of judging anyone one way or the other, it is simply a matter that I don't understand how come the situation is as it is. When computers first came on the market they cost a fortune, as there were only a very few manufacturers that made them. These days, there are so many suppliers that not only are they pretty much disposable, the quality is much higher too.


I think you'll find that there's been "a short-term change in the demand curve" from applying this treatment to a new class of patients. The time-lag between astronomically hiking the price - which suddenly also provides profitable territory for competitors - and those competitors tooling up and getting alternatives to market, is the only period when price gouging can be effective, whether the trigger is a hurricane or a wideboy buying a stagnant manufacturer who happens for the moment to be the sole supplier.

Makes sense, I suppose.

FourPart;1486803 wrote: If other Pharmaceutical companies have not seen fit to partake of the monopoly for a product that has been artificially inflated in price to their own ends by undercutting the price in order to create competition, is that really the fault of the one who inflates the prices. When there is no competition you can name your own price. Once others step in the market is dramatically changed. If the demand is there, and the potential is there to legally provide the supply for that demand, then where is the problem? Why is it not being done?

This isn't a matter of judging anyone one way or the other, it is simply a matter that I don't understand how come the situation is as it is. When computers first came on the market they cost a fortune, as there were only a very few manufacturers that made them. These days, there are so many suppliers that not only are they pretty much disposable, the quality is much higher too.


This drug's primary use for decades was for treatment of Malaria. We don't see much of that in the US, so there was no real market for it.

However, some years back it was discovered that it also treated parasitic infections like Toxoplasmosis, that can be a serious problem for patients who's immune system was compromised.

The market is still limited in the US, (approx. 2000 regular patients) and no drug producer ever saw fit to apply to produce a generic equivalent in the US.

So the guy's cornered the market on a relatively obscure drug, that, will always have a limited market. Good thinking.

Capitalism's poster boy is now serving seven years, less whatever he spent on remand awaiting sentence.

Huzzah.

'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli sentenced to seven years - BBC News

spot;1518221 wrote: Capitalism's poster boy is now serving seven years, less whatever he spent on remand awaiting sentence.

Huzzah.

'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli sentenced to seven years - BBC News


I would hope that that sentence wiped the trademark smirk off of his face.

Good riddance

Wandrin;1518222 wrote: I would hope that that sentence wiped the trademark smirk off of his face.


The smirk looks just like Rees-Mogg.

If the American courts would like to consider an equivalent instance of shameful opportunism - I speak as an uninformed layman here - the greed-driven behavior of Jack Sweeney is just plain despicable.

Jack Sweeney created the Twitter bot @ElonJet, which tracks Musk’s Gulfstream private jet and posts real-time updates of its location.

Teenager seeks $50k from Elon Musk to delete Twitter bot tracking private jet

Obviously the ransom isn't going to be paid - it's 50 lines of juvenile code that could be made for any civil aircraft. The mistake is in trying to squeeze money with menaces.

Wandrin wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:55 pm spot;1518221 wrote: Capitalism's poster boy is now serving seven years, less whatever he spent on remand awaiting sentence.

Huzzah.

'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli sentenced to seven years - BBC News


I would hope that that sentence wiped the trademark smirk off of his face.

Back out on the street, since May.

Shkreli has an Instagram account under his name that links to other accounts on TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Substack, Twitch, Discord and OnlyFans. He also has a Twitter account under the pseudonym Enrique Hernandez, which has 26,000 followers and which he’s used to hold Twitter Spaces to talk to his followers. The account, which regularly posts the same content as his Instagram, was recently suspended.

The content ranges from hot-takes on his investments strategies, to a “Date Martin Shkreli” sign up sheet and an auction of the watch he wore in prison.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tment-tips

Fame is clearly a burden.