Clearly, he is a greedy son-of-a-Khooghra, but I have seen the relish with which he talks about what he has done. It's like watching Smeagol slowly impale a worm on a hook. He enjoys it.
They have evidently been posting it online. Of course, the problem isn't any difficulty producing the drug. It's cheap and easy. The problem is the American government preventing citizens from obtaining health care at a reasonable price, while other people are permitted to do so.
The problem isn't the price of synthesizing the drug. The problem isn't even the expense of synthesizing the drug under conditions that meet the standard for injectable drugs (building and operating a manufacturing plant to FDA regulations is not exactly cheap).
It's doing all that *and* meeting the profit goals of the company that owns the patent.
Other companies either have done or are currently doing that with this drug. It is possible to produce and market cheaply. When one company drastically hikes the price, that is either incompetent or malicious or both. Particularly when the government tries to trap its citizens into paying usurious rates for survival needs instead of allowing them to buy from more competent, more ethical providers elsewhere.
It's not on patent. But there are still exclusive supply agreements for reasons I can't fathom.
Companies *have* sold it for a fair profit - the problem was a money-ass (I can't say money *man*) ganked the rights and jacked up the price because he could. And then said it was for the good of supply consistency (because people will quickly produce a drug that has huge profit margins).
Shkreli sympathizers pointed out the students were closely supervised by a number of Ph.D types and that the time these people had spent should therefore be added to their costs.
My contention would be, that is overhead cost and ought to be amortized over the estimated time the pill is likely to be in production before it is superceded by a better treatment option. You don't have the Ph.Ds hovering over each and every batch, that's just silly.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmith
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 05:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 05:32 am (UTC)Well...
Date: 2016-12-05 05:36 am (UTC)Re: Well...
Date: 2016-12-05 05:42 am (UTC)(guttural growl)
[ɣɪˤ:::::]
(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 06:34 am (UTC)http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113416689/daraprim-australia-students-create-120216/
Don't know what the WaPo article said, but the one I found has some nice detail to it.
Thank you!
Date: 2016-12-05 06:52 am (UTC)You're welcome!
Date: 2016-12-05 06:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 07:27 am (UTC)You're welcome!
Date: 2016-12-05 07:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 08:14 am (UTC)Well...
Date: 2016-12-05 09:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 09:38 pm (UTC)It's doing all that *and* meeting the profit goals of the company that owns the patent.
Well...
Date: 2016-12-05 10:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-07 05:12 pm (UTC)Companies *have* sold it for a fair profit - the problem was a money-ass (I can't say money *man*) ganked the rights and jacked up the price because he could. And then said it was for the good of supply consistency (because people will quickly produce a drug that has huge profit margins).
(no subject)
Date: 2016-12-05 10:40 pm (UTC)My contention would be, that is overhead cost and ought to be amortized over the estimated time the pill is likely to be in production before it is superceded by a better treatment option. You don't have the Ph.Ds hovering over each and every batch, that's just silly.