i don't, because this was an already developed drug they simply bought not developed and so are not paying off the costs of development.
not sure why your asking me given iwas talking about investment for R&D.
Drug's 5,000% price increase, where's the justification?
- Thread starter Kronos
- Start date
i don't, because this was an already developed drug they simply bought not developed and so are not paying off the costs of development.
not sure why your asking me given iwas talking about investment for R&D.
may well have originally been an orphan drug, ie for a very rare condition etc so they get longer patents to give them time to recoup the costs and other incentives to try and get people to research for rare conditions.
if its now used for HIV treatment that wasn't really a big condition 60 years ago so.
Caporegime
LOL the sheer nerve of this post calling me ignorant! Firstly if it will yield no return then what's the point of doing it at all? If there's no point doing it then why price gouge the existing drug?
Secondly, yes I do think a private investor is going to throw boat-loads of cash at pharmaceutical R&D - what do you think shareholders are?
Thirdly, like it or not loans are typically how R&D projects are funded. Fundamental to this is the concept of risk, the risk that the R&D project doesn't result in a viable product at the end. This is why big pharaceutical companies have the advantage because they have the means to undertake multiple R&D projects and it's extremely unlikely that all will fail, your product that does become viable is how you repay your loans. This is why GlaxoSmithKline's total debts in 2014 reached $32bn.
Basic Business 101 for wildman over - lol.
Utter codswallop - government's don't do pharmaceutical research because they aren't and shouldn't be concerned with the design and manufacture of drugs - they should concentrate on running their country. They do fund research (as do charities), but they get people with the proper expertise to do it and rightly so. Saving and improving lives is the goal of pharmaceutical eco-system - I've certainly never said pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit, but I don't believe they should be allowed to make a profit by buying the rights to ancient, cheap drugs then putting up the price because it's "undervalued compared to other life-saving medicine".
Associate
It may not cure it, since there is no cure, but it makes the neuropathic pain from MS a hell of a lot more bearable and lets you try to get back to some kind of normality.
I took Sativex, which is made from cannabis for a few years and that helped me to sleep at night. Eased the pain and spasticity in my legs.
Funnily enough this wasnt the only company to try this kind of price hike this week but probably got less exposure since they didnt have a slimy CEO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-increase-for-tuberculosis-drug-10513141.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-increase-for-tuberculosis-drug-10513141.html
Associate
Lets all pray he does not buy the rights to penicillin.
Soldato
LOL the sheer nerve of this post calling me ignorant! Firstly if it will yield no return then what's the point of doing it at all? If there's no point doing it then why price gouge the existing drug?
Secondly, yes I do think a private investor is going to throw boat-loads of cash at pharmaceutical R&D - what do you think shareholders are?
Thirdly, like it or not loans are typically how R&D projects are funded. Fundamental to this is the concept of risk, the risk that the R&D project doesn't result in a viable product at the end. This is why big pharaceutical companies have the advantage because they have the means to undertake multiple R&D projects and it's extremely unlikely that all will fail, your product that does become viable is how you repay your loans. This is why GlaxoSmithKline's total debts in 2014 reached $32bn.
Basic Business 101 for wildman over - lol.
Utter codswallop - government's don't do pharmaceutical research because they aren't and shouldn't be concerned with the design and manufacture of drugs - they should concentrate on running their country. They do fund research (as do charities), but they get people with the proper expertise to do it and rightly so. Saving and improving lives is the goal of pharmaceutical eco-system - I've certainly never said pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit, but I don't believe they should be allowed to make a profit by buying the rights to ancient, cheap drugs then putting up the price because it's "undervalued compared to other life-saving medicine".
Shareholders invest because they expect to get dividends and a return on their investment. Shareholders are not charity, they expect returns, and returns means having to make a decent enough profit. R&D pipelines for large pharma are not bank rolled by unsecured loans from the banking sector. If a company fails to make bank it gets liquidated and anything it works on gets sold as part of the asset strip to the highest bidder who in turn will gouge it to ensure they do make bank. That includes products that are in development where the most amount of profit can be secured if they are successfully taken through phase 4 and into commercial production.
It's not just basic business 101 when it comes to pharma, its a lot more complex because of the massively long drawn out development cycles and the fact that your success rate is around 1 in 5000 of every development started. Investors do not throw money into Pharma for no gain, they expect to turn a tidy profit. If you really don't get that you need to go back to school.
Last edited:
Supposedly he's being accused of doing this to make money on short selling. The way he's publicized this has driven the stocks down of other pharma companies which he can then make money on.
I'm sure it's totally not true, he hasnt been accused of it before and it's purely coincidental, he just wanted to make the drugs for the benefit of everyone and needed the money to start developing other drugs.
I'm sure it's totally not true, he hasnt been accused of it before and it's purely coincidental, he just wanted to make the drugs for the benefit of everyone and needed the money to start developing other drugs.
Win win both ways. If it gets accepted he makes $260m a year. If the authorities come down on him like a tonne of bricks and threaten new laws to stop this (which is what happens) 4% gets wiped off pharmaceutical companies share prices in one day.
So put your money in both and you will win either way.
He's essentially s*****d over the pharmaceutical industry since we will almost definitely get some sort of regulation being looked at now to prevent this kind of gauging in future.
He's also pulled a dodgy scam since he probably planned to hike the price to $750 to see the reaction and then slash the price in 'half' to make people happy. Win win situation for this low life.
He's also pulled a dodgy scam since he probably planned to hike the price to $750 to see the reaction and then slash the price in 'half' to make people happy. Win win situation for this low life.
Win win both ways. If it gets accepted he makes $260m a year. If the authorities come down on him like a tonne of bricks and threaten new laws to stop this (which is what happens) 4% gets wiped off pharmaceutical companies share prices in one day.
So put your money in both and you will win either way.
Exactly it would be genius, if it wasnt so blatant.
Still genius as he hasn't done anything illegal and he's made a shed load of money.
Downside he's hated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,593
Last edited:
it isn't used for HIV treatment
it is sometimes used by HIV patients among others
HIV wasn't even known about 60 years ago, let along not just being a big deal
I dont know, I thought there were rules against market manipulation like this.
I'm sure if they were inclined they could find something illegal to bring him up on.
But even so all the money he has now should probably be enough to bribe off and avoid mitigate the hate.
just more of the same
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34331761
Seems this guys has done the rounds of 'business' already
Researching new drugs takes money, and that money has to come from somewhere. If this guy had increased the price of a single dose of Daraprim from $13.50 to $20.00 or perhaps even $40.00, nobody would have batted an eyelid, but hiking it up to an obscene $750.00 is just taking the ****.
Whatever way I think about this it looks dodgy, and the shameless way he initially responded to his critics is probably a reflection of how he sees absolutely nothing inherently wrong with what he was doing. Like a lot of fund managers and financiers, there doesn't seem to be any filter to their business mindset that says 'sure, we could do this, but everyone will look at it and say we're filthy greedy rats, so maybe we shouldn't, if only so we don't look like terrible people'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34331761
Seems this guys has done the rounds of 'business' already
Researching new drugs takes money, and that money has to come from somewhere. If this guy had increased the price of a single dose of Daraprim from $13.50 to $20.00 or perhaps even $40.00, nobody would have batted an eyelid, but hiking it up to an obscene $750.00 is just taking the ****.
Whatever way I think about this it looks dodgy, and the shameless way he initially responded to his critics is probably a reflection of how he sees absolutely nothing inherently wrong with what he was doing. Like a lot of fund managers and financiers, there doesn't seem to be any filter to their business mindset that says 'sure, we could do this, but everyone will look at it and say we're filthy greedy rats, so maybe we shouldn't, if only so we don't look like terrible people'.