I joined Martin Shkreli's discord server.

[Atomsk_]

He started playing Alice in Chains and Smashing Pumpkins on his guitar and talking about his investments lol.

[Sandstone]

I both love and hate that guy. He's actually very smart, kind of a bad rap in some ways. Media portrayed him in a very dishonest way about the price raises he did of those drugs (it's a very common practice in pharmaceuticals and is nowhere near what they normally charge for similar niche medications).

 

That said, he has some serious character flaws, he's a bit abrasive and lacks people skills. I'm subscribed to his youtube channel.

[1pooh4u]

I both love and hate that guy. He's actually very smart, kind of a bad rap in some ways. Media portrayed him in a very dishonest way about the price raises he did of those drugs (it's a very common practice in pharmaceuticals and is nowhere near what they normally charge for similar niche medications).

 

That said, he has some serious character flaws, he's a bit abrasive and lacks people skills. I'm subscribed to his youtube channel.

smfh lol

[bnmjy]

I both love and hate that guy. He's actually very smart, kind of a bad rap in some ways. Media portrayed him in a very dishonest way about the price raises he did of those drugs (it's a very common practice in pharmaceuticals and is nowhere near what they normally charge for similar niche medications).

 

That said, he has some serious character flaws, he's a bit abrasive and lacks people skills. I'm subscribed to his youtube channel.

 

You and op just want his dick.

[Sandstone]

You and op just want his dick.

 

I'd take his dick if I could be his husbandu, I mean.... he's super fucking rich.

 

That said, he's not really my type of fella personality or looks wise.

 

I do have some modicum of respect for him though, unlike alot of people that run businesses in the pharmaceutical industry he was willing to invest in the development of drugs to treat rare diseases and didn't raise prices on drugs that people would have to pay for out of pocket. Which by comparison is pretty good compared to the price gouging of medications which are not completely covered by insurance companies and which millions of people actually take for treatment. While 750 dollars is a seemingly large increase in the cost of a drug from 13 dollars, from a business standpoint he made the right decision because it is not financially viable to produce a product for a major net deficit that only a few thousand people actually take each year.

 

If you watch any of the interviews with the guy made to reporters one on one, he explains his reasoning in detail. The company would not be able to continue to make the drug at a huge net loss indefinitely. Not to mention he actively invested in the development of drugs that other companies wouldn't normally research because there is little profit in doing so (very few people actually have the illnesses). It is entirely likely had he not bought the drug one of two things would have happened, a larger company would have raised the prices even more, or they would have discontinued the drug altogether.

 

I initially had a very negative opinion on the guy having just seen a few stories about the guy on cable news and a couple of online newspapers. I found it relevant to me as I am gay and at a higher risk of contracting HIV as a result, so I make a point of keeping up to date with anything related to the disease. For instance, I posted a while back on the ASMB before it was dismantled about experimental treatments using gene-splicing techniques to treat HIV and a number of other materials. The point is this is not something I just randomly chose to look into because of a perceived political bias.

 

Then I began looking for actual interviews from the guy, and found several including some on air in which he outlines his reasoning in great detail for raising the price of the drug. I don't form opinions of people or news based off initial impressions, I always reserve judgment of something or someone that is of interest to me until I have a large scope of information to go on. Even the stuff he was convicted of has nothing to do with raising the prices of drugs, and he was acquitted of any charges that were brought that could be misconstrued as "immoral". The only things he was actually convicted of are lieing to his hedge fund about the money they had invested. And even at that, there was no actual victim because even though he lied about it according to the legal determination the investors were left with a major net gain at the end of the day.

 

I think people spend too much time focusing on people's outward personality they see from a few sound bites on the news and rather very little time actually researching things and forming opinions and views based on logical thought processes. It's the same beef I have with zealous religious people and their desire to shove their unjustified and unreasonable shit down my throat.

[Sandstone]

I'll just add, that he is a bit annoying in that he has very little social awareness and is pretty abrasive for no real reason when talking to people. But this is pretty common among eccentric figures that are picked up by the media, so I can't hold that against him too much. It's definitely not an attractive personality trait though.

[mochi]

I both love and hate that guy. He's actually very smart, kind of a bad rap in some ways. Media portrayed him in a very dishonest way about the price raises he did of those drugs (it's a very common practice in pharmaceuticals and is nowhere near what they normally charge for similar niche medications).

 

That said, he has some serious character flaws, he's a bit abrasive and lacks people skills. I'm subscribed to his youtube channel.

look, Sandy, I like you....but I don't agree with anything you just said S:

[lupin_bebop]

Quit trying to suck his dick, and you'll be fine.

[Sandstone]

mochi[/member]

You should read my second post above, it explains what I said in greater detail. Its fine if we don't agree though. 

[mochi]

mochi[/member]

You should read my second post above, it explains what I said in greater detail. Its fine if we don't agree though. 

I mean I still like you ::]::

[Sandstone]

I know. Why would I assume otherwise. I don't take most disagreements personally. It's a pretty unusual trait thesee days. More people should try it.

[Satou Kazuma]

Fuck that guy. He's a fucking troll for raising a medical item that some folks rely on to an absurd amount of money. Plus he owns that one wu-tang album that rza decided to not released to the public.

[NaBarney]

Shkreli isn't the problem he's just the symptom, capitalism is the problem.

[Atomsk_]

capitalism is the problem.

 

haha okay.

[quebecelegy]

did anyone ever find out if he actually did give the drug for free to people who couldn't afford it?

[1pooh4u]

Sandstone[/member] but he raised the price from 13.50 to 750  cat|

[1pooh4u]

Sandstone[/member] but he raised the price from 13.50 to 750  cat|

But there are drugs that cost a lot more. I know this from experience

[NaBarney]

"Shreklee is not a bad man he just needs to make a profit comparable with other extremely profitable pharmacy barons on the drugs his company created (largely thanks to government sponsored R&D) which treat illnesses that not a lot of people have yet will affect the human race forever, most companies don't even bother making such treatments because it isn't profitable but Shirkly benevolently decided to make that investment for financial gain, really we should be thanking him"

 

Right, he's just an actor in a shitty system, capitalism is the problem

 

"hOLD ON NOW"

[Sandstone]

https://www.turingpharma.com/press-releases/15/turing-reduces-cost-of-daraprimreg-pyrimethamine/

 

Yes, they do. This press statements is from Turing Pharma, Martin Shkreli's company. Turing is a relatively new and small pharmaceutical company btw, meaning they do not have large scale infastructure and access to produce drugs in the same manner as say Pfizer. They are also a company which specifically specializes in rare disease drugs and research into new treatments for rare diseases.

 

In the press release it not only specifically states they are giving 50% discounts to hospitals and expanding trial and payment reduction programs for individuals and hospitals, but that the drug is avaolable under medicaid plans for as little as 1 dollar for a 100 pill bottle, which accounts for 2/3 of the patients on the drug. Keep in mind that only around 6 to 7 thousand peopLe are on this drug.

 

The 750 dollar price tag is being payed by retail level insurance companies e.g. blue cross, humana, ect...

 

Before the price was raised the drug was a major financial loss,  again to a small company that has limited resources to make these rare diseas drugs in the first place.

 

This is also nowhere near as egregious as what larger pharma companies have been doing for years to things like retrovirals, diabetes, and heart disease meds that millions and millions of people take. These types of companies wouldn't buy a patent like the drugs Turing purchased because they are not huge money makers.

 

[Ginguy]

He was convicted on a couple of securities fraud charges.

[Sandstone]

"Shreklee is not a bad man he just needs to make a profit comparable with other extremely profitable pharmacy barons on the drugs his company created (largely thanks to government sponsored R&D) which treat illnesses that not a lot of people have yet will affect the human race forever, most companies don't even bother making such treatments because it isn't profitable but Shirkly benevolently decided to make that investment for financial gain, really we should be thanking him"

 

Right, he's just an actor in a shitty system, capitalism is the problem

 

"hOLD ON NOW"

 

Well unfortunately investment is the mechanism through which drugs can be developed. Running labs, and paying Dr's and chemical engineers is extremely expensive. And yes he is making alit of money of his drugs that his companies developed. Why is that wrong? Why should he and those involved in the company not be rewarded for making life saving drugs that no one else would normally create?

 

Look, I really wish we lived in a post scarcity society or something like that, it sucks that we have to pay for shit in order to get the help and essentials we need. But until we come to a society where things can be made without cost or minimal cost, how exactly do you propose we go about getting drugs like this made? I don't have viable and better solution, than a capitol invesment system. Do you have a solution? And by that I mean specifically one that will get these drugs developed, produced, distributed, and safety checked? If you do then I'm all for it, let's start a revolution. If not, then I think it's a bit easy stand back and throw stones at people you don't over things you don't lie because they suck, without offering solutions.

[Sandstone]

He was convicted on a couple of securities fraud charges.

 

I mentioned this earlier, these were his only convictions and even then the people that he lied too made a huge profit on their investment.

[stilgar]

You are such a piece of shit sandstone.

[quebecelegy]

You are such a piece of shit sandstone.

[quebecelegy]

https://www.turingpharma.com/press-releases/15/turing-reduces-cost-of-daraprimreg-pyrimethamine/

 

Yes, they do. This press statements is from Turing Pharma, Martin Shkreli's company. Turing is a relatively new and small pharmaceutical company btw, meaning they do not have large scale infastructure and access to produce drugs in the same manner as say Pfizer. They are also a company which specifically specializes in rare disease drugs and research into new treatments for rare diseases.

 

In the press release it not only specifically states they are giving 50% discounts to hospitals and expanding trial and payment reduction programs for individuals and hospitals, but that the drug is avaolable under medicaid plans for as little as 1 dollar for a 100 pill bottle, which accounts for 2/3 of the patients on the drug. Keep in mind that only around 6 to 7 thousand peopLe are on this drug.

 

The 750 dollar price tag is being payed by retail level insUranus companies e.g. blue cross, humana, ect...

 

Before the price was raised the drug was a major financial loss,  again to a small company that has limited resources to make these rare diseas drugs in the first place.

 

This is also nowhere near as egregious as what larger pharma companies have been doing for years to things like retrovirals, diabetes, and heart disease meds that millions and millions of people take. These types of companies wouldn't buy a patent like the drugs Turing purchased because they are not huge money makers.

i wish people had used this whole thing to attack pharma on a wide-scale instead of just one person, but oh well.

[mochi]

I mentioned this earlier, these were his only convictions and even then the people that he lied too made a huge profit on their investment.

Sandy, your my friend and all.....but please

 

[Sandstone]

You are such a piece of shit sandstone.

 

Why? Look if anyone has a legit reason as to why what he did is actually wrong I'm willing to listen. If you just call me names then I don't really have much to go on in terms of reaponse...

 

I guess I'm bad for caring about diseases that affect my community and thoroughly research related topics in my spare time? I didn't originally have a very good opinon of him either, and I really don't care for him that much now either. But, I don't agree that what he did was wrong based on what I learned by reading about it.

 

It's funny cause I have been posting topics on ASMB about HIV and AIDS for several years, this is the first time I've been called a piece of shit for presenting evidence of a related topic.

 

If you like we could discuss stuff about CRSPer technology instead, it's less inflammatory and I have followed it pretty closely.

[NaBarney]

Well unfortunately investment is the mechanism through which drugs can be developed. Running labs, and paying Dr's and chemical engineers is extremely expensive. And yes he is making alit of money of his drugs that his companies developed. Why is that wrong? Why should he and those involved in the company not be rewarded for making life saving drugs that no one else would normally create?

 

Look, I really wish we lived in a post scarcity society or something like that, it sucks that we have to pay for shit in order to get the help and essentials we need. But until we come to a society where things can be made without cost or minimal cost, how exactly do you propose we go about getting drugs like this made? I don't have viable and better solution, than a capitol invesment system. Do you have a solution? And by that I mean specifically one that will get these drugs developed, produced, distributed, and safety checked? If you do then I'm all for it, let's start a revolution. If not, then I think it's a bit easy stand back and throw stones at people you don't over things you don't lie because they suck, without offering solutions.

 

Yeah you use public money to pay people who do the work of creating medicine for medical conditions and save money by cutting out the billions a year in profit that go to people like Shkreli who don't actually do anything but get paid with mostly taxpayer money anyway

 

Save money further and get more value for the money spent by providing universal healthcare

[Sandstone]

Yeah you use public money to pay people who do the work of creating medicine for medical conditions and save money by cutting out the billions a year in profit that go to people like Shkreli who don't actually do anything but get paid with mostly taxpayer money anyway

 

Save money further and get more value for the money spent by providing universal healthcare

 

That is one proposed plan, usually referred to as public option or single payer. It is financially viable under some estimates, but only with some rather unpleasant concessions. The most obvious of which is that it is not necessarily guaranteed to reduce costs to the public, at best it is guaranteed to cost the same amount we currently pay out through medicare for a fraction of the cost.

[NaBarney]

Everyone has access basic preventative care regardless of income

 

No one goes bankrupt due to medical costs

 

No one has to wait until a medical condition is serious enough to seek emergency medical care which drives up costs for everybody

 

No billions of dollars a year spent on costs unrelated to health care like Shkreli profits, insurance company profits, and billing and administrative costs

 

Save money spent on useless things that don't help anybody, spend it instead on things that help people. Make medicine regardless of whether a rich investor thinks curing a disease is profitable.

[Sandstone]

Everyone has access basic preventative care regardless of income

 

This is true, however, the quality of what Americans currently consider as basic preventative care would probably decrease in some or many ways. Evidence of some of this is already seen in Medicare HMO programs and European style health care programs. This might include lack of access to things that would be otherwise life-saving because it is not considered as a cost-effective preventative care option (and there is no other alternative treatment). Ironically this is very relevant to our discussion here as people with rare diseases often are affected by this particular aspect of public option health care in foreign countries. Admittedly we simply do not know to what extent this would occur in an American system because it has not really been try on a national scale.

 

No one goes bankrupt due to medical costs

 

This is a major benefit, also on a related note it eliminates alot of inconvenience to patients not having to fill out forms and wade through phone calls with insurance companies over coverage (I have been there it is not fun). However, the average amount of tax paid per citizen would almost certainly have to be increased substantially in order to actually pay for this benefit, or the country would go bankrupt instead.

 

Source: Nonpartisan Urban Institute's analysis in relation to Bernie Sander's proposed single payer plan

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending/view/full_report

Quote from source:

Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and non-health spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here. The discrepancy suggests that to fully finance the Sanders approach, additional sources of revenue would have to be identified; that is, the proposed taxes are much too low to fully finance the plan.

 

There are many other analyses from other publication saying similar things.

 

No one has to wait until a medical condition is serious enough to seek emergency medical care which drives up costs for everybody

 

Yes. It is worth mentioning that people would have to wait in a type of Queue to see a Dr. depending on medical personnel per capita in each major area. This has been seen in other countries implementation of similiar programs. I've actually had some conversations with some of my friends in Canada about this exact same thing. Though to what extent this would occur here is also unknown and untested.

 

No billions of dollars a year spent on costs unrelated to health care like Shkreli profits, insurance company profits, and billing and administrative costs

They would be spent just not in the private sector, this money would instead be used to pay administrative costs in a public healthcare system as we do now with Social Security Administration except on a much larger scale. This is really a matter of which you think would be better to deal with and pay, bureaucratic administration or insurance companies. There would most certainly still be these types of costs though in different areas related to government. Government workers don't just work for free. It's also worth noting that many analysis of such plans (and evidence from other countries systems suggest that medical practitioners such as Drs, Nurses, and specialists would have to earn significantly less. This, in turn, lowers the incentive for one to go to medical school. As much as I would like to believe most people going into medicine are mostly altruistic, I know otherwise having seen a large number of Drs that are just flat out bad and do not care about people beyond getting them out the door with minimal treatment and to their rescheduling counter.

 

Save money spent on useless things that don't help anybody, spend it instead on things that help people. Make medicine regardless of whether a rich investor thinks curing a disease is profitable.

This seems like a rather generalized claim, I'm not sure how to respond to it specifically. Perhaps you could elaborate on it further.

 

In short, I do agree that a single payer or public option type of plan is worth considering and potentially planning or investigating further, perhaps a higher degree of certainty in many of the aspects I mentioned above would lend itself to a single payer implementation. That said, it is spurious at best to declare that this is certainly a better option than the system we currently have regarding healthcare.

[Sandstone]

That'll be my last post on this, I had originally just wanted to give a bit of an opinion on the guy's perceived character and its accuracy. It's graduated to a debate on healthcare which is not really something I want to discuss at large right now. And I think I presented all the evidence about why I don't believe what Shkreli did was that bad or immoral in comparison to what so many others do and have been doing. So I'm satisfied, sorry if I offended anyone really didn't mean too, but I think that open and frank discussion about stuff like this is pretty good for informational purposes.