Pharmaceutical company buys drug used to treat life-threatening infections; raises price from $13.50 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;48734091]To even talk about the market regulating prices in the medical industry is laughable. It's so highly regulated that any sort of competition is impossible.[/QUOTE] Well, I'd say that 5000% increase certainly shows that the regulation is not in the hands of a doctor, but of a businessman.

[QUOTE=download;48735656]Given the drug has been on the market for 63 years there would be samples out there. No one can control a mass-produced disposable item that effectively.[/QUOTE] no they have to have samples of the current drug being produced, as in the current batches to compare to their drug, the pharma industry has to analyze basically everything, even batch to batch to make sure they aren't going to kill anyone, this dick's company is making it impossible to obtain batch samples easily by not distributing the drug to whole sellers

[QUOTE=gufu;48736064]Well, I'd say that 5000% increase certainly shows that the regulation is not in the hands of a doctor, but of a businessman.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean. The regulation is in the hands of the government.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48733741]Broken logic. Pill is decades old and he did not invent it. R&D costs: No Distribution: 1000% increase in price? Production: Cheap to produce.[/QUOTE] This sort of information makes me really want to believe that he's doing this to make a point about how broken the pharmaceutical industry is in regards to regulation. On the other hand, I can't entirely rule out that he's just a cunt, in which case I hope he wakes up with a broken condom hanging out of his ass.

if Turing sold Daraprim at the previous price, it would only have a revenue of $5mil. which isn't realistic for a modern pharmaceutical corporation that is attempting to branch out in other respects also keep in mind that Turing will provide Daraprim for free to those without insurance and the poor

[QUOTE=Sableye;48736094]no they have to have samples of the current drug being produced, as in the current batches to compare to their drug, the pharma industry has to analyze basically everything, even batch to batch to make sure they aren't going to kill anyone, this dick's company is making it impossible to obtain batch samples easily by not distributing the drug to whole sellers[/QUOTE] [I]The current drug has been in production for 63 years.[/I] There will be samples out there for them to compare or copy and that is before looking for an exact description in the FDA records.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;48736176]At those prices, if you weren't poor before, you will be shortly.[/QUOTE] it's the insurance company that will be paying the bulk of daraprim's expenses, not the patient. he also has something in mind for the associated copay

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48733680]I did read your post, it was very informative. Now where do we actually disagree? Maybe just in the wording department?[/QUOTE] We don't actually disagree. I also think that his actions are immoral, but not all of his justifications can automatically be thrown out the window.

I have a source that says this guy once bought an MUD character for $5000 and was later banned for role-playing giving someone a non-consensual blowjob. Yes, the CEO. I'm not joking, I'm dead serious.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736104]I'm not sure what you mean. The regulation is in the hands of the government.[/QUOTE] There are no regulations that made him price the drug at it's current price. It is entirely his own decision.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736444]There are no regulations that made him price the drug at it's current price. It is entirely his own decision.[/QUOTE] Right, but there are regulations that stop competition.

Generic variant of this drug must do the same stuff for bargain ... what's the fuzz, it's hardly the only unique one on market

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736448]Right, but there are regulations that stop competition.[/QUOTE] Considering that the competition could inevitably project danger upon users, therefore the regulations are required in such a field. Their removal as well as shortening of time period wherein the medicine is tested and is assured to be capable and not dangerous, could lead to further exploitation of the system by short-time companies, who could introduce medicine that is insufficiently tested or it's drawbacks being underplayed or not properly documented. It's not a field where any sort entrepreneurship. Medicine's primary goal is to save lives at any cost, not to turn profit. The existence of profit-oriented pharmaceutical industry and medical pay-per-service is a defilement of the medicine as a whole. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] While surely you may respond that it's "totally like, your opinion, dude", the fact that medicine as a field exist for pure betterment of humankind, is well... a fact. It's possible to attach a market system to it, but it should not change the main objective, since that morphs the entire field's ultimate goal from caring for human beings, to trying to accumulate as much money as possible. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Dwarden;48736475]Generic variant of this drug must do the same stuff for bargain ... [/QUOTE] The best part is that Daraprim IS a generic drug.

so basically this guy buys the rights to a drug, jacks up the price, then takes to twitter to say basically "lol u mad brah?"? am i getting this wrong or do we live in the universe the onion reports from?

[QUOTE=gufu;48736500]Considering that the competition could inevitably project danger upon users, therefore the regulations are required in such a field. Their removal as well as shortening of time period wherein the medicine is tested and is assured to be capable and not dangerous, could lead to further exploitation of the system by short-time companies, who could introduce medicine that is insufficiently tested or it's drawbacks being underplayed or not properly documented.[/QUOTE] That's fine if you want to argue that the regulation is completely justified, but it's still regulation. You can't blame the free market for not working when you fully admit that the market isn't free. [QUOTE]It's not a field where any sort entrepreneurship. Medicine's primary goal is to save lives at any cost, not to turn profit. The existence of profit-oriented pharmaceutical industry and medical pay-per-service is a defilement of the medicine as a whole.[/QUOTE] You say that now, but the reason we have the majority of the existent drugs, especially for rare treatments, is because of a possibility for profit. Even European drug companies use the expensive American market to make their profit.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48732027]Not defending him, but his last tweet is right. Twitter isn't where you go if you want to make a change.[/QUOTE] Wasn't Libyan revolution fueled by Twitter (and facebook)? I am sure if thousand of people would tweet about his asshole-ity, he would feel the pressure.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736595]You say that now, but the reason we have the majority of the existent drugs, especially for rare treatments, is because of a possibility for profit. Even European drug companies use the expensive American market to make their profit.[/QUOTE] Majority of research for medical (as well as great deal of other fields of science) is done by higher educational facilities like colleges and universities. Majority of this research is not funded, and the works are available for claim by any company which actually produces the medicine. In that specific case, yes, the company has some beneficial reasoning, considering that they provide the actually production of the medicine. However, to say that the rare treatments are due to for-profit nature, is to make a mistake. In fact, majority of rare treatments are not funded or searched for by companies, since they are not worth the investment. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48736595]That's fine if you want to argue that the regulation is completely justified, but it's still regulation. You can't blame the free market for not working when you fully admit that the market isn't free.[/QUOTE] Free Market is a functional system in many spheres no matter how regulated they are, with industry being an example. Both industries have heavy regulations, and yet the free market of food industry continues to do well. Unless, by your definition, free market is entirely libertarian, and therefore no market is truly free, since government supervision is always required, and free market by your definition is only possible in a state of anarchy (which of course bring the question of the value of the currency).

That fellow is pretty tweaky on those interviews. Mixed feelings on his answers. Some parts make sense (needs to make money to put into R&D), but whether or not he's being straight with us I question.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736635]Majority of research for medical (as well as great deal of other fields of science) is done by higher educational facilities like colleges and universities. Majority of this research is not funded, and the works are available for claim by any company which actually produces the medicine. In that specific case, yes, the company has some beneficial reasoning, considering that they provide the actually production of the medicine. However, to say that the rare treatments are due to for-profit nature, is to make a mistake. In fact, majority of rare treatments are not funded or searched for by companies, since they are not worth the investment.[/QUOTE] Look at the history of the majority, if not all, of the great medical discoveries and the promise of profit will have played a huge part. Even if the initial drug interaction is first seen in a government funded lab, you still have a LONG way to go to making it a commercially available product. Those labs don't pay for the FDA testing, those labs don't produce the product on a mass scale, those labs don't go out and educated doctors about the new product nationally, etc. etc. etc. Take the MRI machine as an example. The creator developed the process at the University of New York, but got the funds to actually make it from private backers, and when it was ready he immediately created his own company and took it to market. The promise of profit is what actually got it in the hands of doctors. Another great example: Penicillin. Again, developed by state funded research teams in England and US, but only able to be mass produced when made commercially by Pfizer. It's arguable that the only reason we had Penicillin ready in time for WWII is because of the profit possibilities and the work done by Pfizer because of it. [editline]21st September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=gufu;48736635]Free Market is a functional system in many spheres no matter how regulated they are, with industry being an example. Both industries have heavy regulations, and yet the free market of food industry continues to do well. Unless, by your definition, free market is entirely libertarian, and therefore no market is truly free, since government supervision is always required, and free market by your definition is only possible in a state of anarchy (which of course bring the question of the value of the currency).[/QUOTE] You're presenting a false dichotomy. The medical industry is incredibly regulated to the point where putting out a competing product out is essentially impossible for anyone but a massive corporation, and even then it's extremely risky. Of course price control within a free market isn't going to happen when you take away the biggest means of that control, namely, competition. That's not even comparable to the food industry.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736747]Look at the history of the majority, if not all, of the great medical discoveries and the promise of profit will have played a huge part. Even if the initial drug interaction is first seen in a government funded lab, you still have a LONG way to go to making it a commercially available product. Those labs don't pay for the FDA testing, those labs don't produce the product on a mass scale, those labs don't go out and educated doctors about the new product nationally, etc. etc. etc. Take the MRI machine as an example. The creator developed the process at the University of New York, but got the funds to actually make it from private backers, and when it was ready he immediately created his own company and took it to market. The promise of profit is what actually got it in the hands of doctors. Another great example: Penicillin. Again, developed by state funded research teams in England and US, but only able to be mass produced when made commercially by Pfizer. It's arguable that the only reason we had Penicillin ready in time for WWII is because of the profit possibilities and the work done by Pfizer because of it.[/QUOTE] Fair enough of a point, although I will say that this applies mainly to medicine and tools that are widely needed, and ones that are relevant to smaller populations, are either unavailable or are expensive due to not being mass produced due to small need (obviously enough). The fact that a lot of things are in theory are possible, but are simply awaiting for investment, are obvious. However when it comes to medicine, there is still the ethics concern when it comes to the application of the medical treatment. The acquisition of those items is not free, but it must be available to all who need it as such. It's a product, but it cannot be be regulated by a free market entirely, least we end up with a great market for allergy and flu medicine, but very few examples of medicine for lesser-spread diseases (although, one could argue that the current market is in such state). In this case, we end up with a situation where it's unethical to withdraw medicine from a suffering patient if they have no way to pay for the medicine, however the corporations must turn a profit for sustenance and expansion. Third party solutions, such as Medical Insurance have visibly failed, most policies are specifically partitioned as to lower the number of possible issues covered for the insured individual, and the increase of the pricing of the medical services can also be attributed to this as well, in a certain circular way (you need insurance to pay for medical fees, thus the doctor may charge more since they charge an entity rather than individual, thus raising the insurance fees, thus making them inaccessible to most). In all honesty, I am surprised that no country has jumped at a perfect chance to begin large-scale industry in their own backyard. The possible profit for the country itself, as well as benefits to all individuals, foreign and domestic is easily noted. Additionally, regulations are needed to halt majority of what amounts of snake oil peddlers (and they do so successfully). Especially, in the area where short-term profits can be rather large, if properly applied.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736635]Majority of research for medical (as well as great deal of other fields of science) is done by higher educational facilities like colleges and universities. Majority of this research is not funded, and the works are available for claim by any company which actually produces the medicine. In that specific case, yes, the company has some beneficial reasoning, considering that they provide the actually production of the medicine.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but you're wrong. Basic research is carried out by universities and other public institutions, yes, but drug development is entirely the domain of pharmaceutical companies. Drug development relies on the knowledge that basic research produces, but basic research alone cannot produce a drug.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736747] You're presenting a false dichotomy. The medical industry is incredibly regulated to the point where putting out a competing product out is essentially impossible for anyone but a massive corporation, and even then it's extremely risky. Of course price control within a free market isn't going to happen when you take away the biggest means of that control, namely, competition. That's not even comparable to the food industry.[/QUOTE] Removal of the regulations will in no way produce competition. The entry level for medical development is going to be great, with existing companies patenting all of the existing developments, as they do so now. The only thing that the removal of regulations will introduce, is the danger to the end-user, as the currently leading industries can begin to cut further corners.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736817]Removal of the regulations will in no way produce competition. The entry level for medical development is going to be great, with existing companies patenting all of the existing developments, as they do so now. The only thing that the removal of regulations will introduce, is the danger to the end-user, as the currently leading industries can begin to cut further corners.[/QUOTE] Do you even know how drug development works?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48736815]Sorry, but you're wrong. Basic research is carried out by universities and other public institutions, yes, but drug development is entirely the domain of pharmaceutical companies. Drug development relies on the knowledge that basic research produces, but basic research alone cannot produce a drug.[/QUOTE] R&D is reliant upon the basic research for the application of product. It's a relationship that is undeniable. There is nothing that claims otherwise in what you quoted. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48736820]Do you even know how drug development works?[/QUOTE] Enlighten me further, then.

"Muscular dystrophy. I can cure every known case with a simple inoculation. Have Swan find a way to slow it to a crawl. Turn it into a lifetime treatment program. Right now, it's a mere $300-billion windfall" -Lex Luthor also every pharmaceutical company

[QUOTE=gufu;48736817]Removal of the regulations will in no way produce competition. The entry level for medical development is going to be great, with existing companies patenting all of the existing developments, as they do so now. The only thing that the removal of regulations will introduce, is the danger to the end-user, as the currently leading industries can begin to cut further corners.[/QUOTE] I just simply disagree. If you increase the incentive or decrease the disincentive to do something, then more people will do it. That holds across all of society. So I'm not sure why you would assume that this would be different. [QUOTE]Fair enough of a point, although I will say that this applies mainly to medicine and tools that are widely needed, and ones that are relevant to smaller populations, are either unavailable or are expensive due to not being mass produced due to small need (obviously enough). The fact that a lot of things are in theory are possible, but are simply awaiting for investment, are obvious. However when it comes to medicine, there is still the ethics concern when it comes to the application of the medical treatment. The acquisition of those items is not free, but it must be available to all who need it as such. It's a product, but it cannot be be regulated by a free market entirely, least we end up with a great market for allergy and flu medicine, but very few examples of medicine for lesser-spread diseases (although, one could argue that the current market is in such state).[/QUOTE] There's the other side to it as well: how about all the products that would have been made, but weren't because the cost/risk was too high? Or what about that 10-15 year delay? We can't know how many more people died and/or suffered because of the barriers put in place by strict regulation. Also, the FDA doesn't stop snake oil salesmen. There are new herbal supplements, diet pills, health shakes, etc. coming out all the time that don't help anybody.

I can absolutely fucking guarantee that they weren't selling the medicine at a loss at $13.5, and I am absolutely certain that even if Turing was indeed selling it at a loss it did not warrant the price spike it got. And the CEO is a greedy, entitled, fucking manchild. He doesn't care about people, he cares about profit margins, and he has done this shit before. The only good thing that has come from this idiot is the backlash he generated, which may actually have some repercussions for once. the pharmaceutical industry needs to be reminded who they're working for.

[QUOTE=gufu;48736822]R&D is reliant upon the basic research for the application of product. It's a relationship that is undeniable. There is nothing that claims otherwise in what you quoted. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] Enlighten me further, then.[/QUOTE] Basic research aims to find out things like what causes a disease in the first place, and what kind of drug targets we are looking at. Drug development aims to find out how we can treat the disease, in light of the knowledge that basic research has revealed about a disease. It's two very different types of research that complement each other. I detailed the drug development process in an earlier post [url="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1486519&p=48733188&viewfull=1#post48733188"]here[/url]. To sum it up, it involves the following steps: 1. Find a drug target (an enzyme to be inhibited, a gene to down-regulate, a protein to block etc.). 2. Screen a library of compounds for activity against that drug target. This is done [i]in vitro[/i]. 3. Of those that hit, carry out secondary screens (for toxicity, bioavailability, metabolism etc.). These are usually done [i]in vivo[/i]. 4. Using data from those screens, optimise the drug target using various means (structure-activity relationships, characterisation of protein-ligand complex, 5. Once the compound is optimised, submit the data to the FDA for approval for clinical trials to begin. 6. If approved, carry out the three phases of clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy. 7. If all goes well, the drug is approved and released to the mass market. 8. Monitor the patients for averse effects. Although these should be caught out in the clinical trials, there is always that one patient with that unique set of genes that makes him react badly to a drug. The overall process takes several years and millions can be poured into developing a compound only to have it fail miserably in Phase III clinical trials. The only step that basic research does is step 1. The rest is taken up by drug companies.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48736917]The overall process takes several years and millions can be poured into developing a compound only to have it fail miserably in Phase III clinical trials. The only step that basic research does is step 1. The rest is taken up by drug companies.[/QUOTE] While I do thank you for the listing of the entire process (no, really, I do), the point that the first step is not done by the companies, still holds true. It only makes sense for the companies to begin development when they actually know their market, hence they start at step 2. I still don't see you showing how I am wrong about the regulations. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48736876]I just simply disagree. If you increase the incentive or decrease the disincentive to do something, then more people will do it. That holds across all of society. So I'm not sure why you would assume that this would be different.[/quote] Since I cannot claim any positive improvement due to deregulations of a market within my memory, may I request that you give me an example? [QUOTE=sgman91;48736876] There's the other side to it as well: how about all the products that would have been made, but weren't because the cost/risk was too high? Or what about that 10-15 year delay? We can't know how many more people died and/or suffered because of the barriers put in place by strict regulation. [/quote] There is a possibility that an equal or greater amount of people could die due to lack of restrictions. Other industries suffer from things like pollution as long as they can run around the issue and hide it. Such actions in medicinal industry could be disastrous and is not worth the risk. [QUOTE=sgman91;48736876] Also, the FDA doesn't stop snake oil salesmen. There are new herbal supplements, diet pills, health shakes, etc. coming out all the time that don't help anybody.[/QUOTE] None of those are considered medicine and are therefore not regulated by FDA. The acquisition of those by consumer is simply due to consumer's ignorance to the lack of the benefits and possible dangers. FDA stops snake oil salesmen from actually legally stating that their product is medicine.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48736876]Also, the FDA doesn't stop snake oil salesmen. There are new herbal supplements, diet pills, health shakes, etc. coming out all the time that don't help anybody.[/QUOTE] They are also not marketed as cures. The supplement industry is more of a free market than the drug industry because the FDA does not regulate supplements for efficacy, only for safety.