Drug's 5,000% price increase, where's the justification?

If I had to hazard a guess I'd put money on this basically being a ponzi scheme, guy has been using the publicity to generate more and more business for himself while he made some bad calls with previous investments as that's what appeared to have happened with one of his hedge funds few years back.
 
It is because the owner of the company purchasing these drugs is a passive sociopath who is untouchable because of stupid US laws and medical systems.

It is a simple as that.
 
yup (well the US justice system got him in the end), though technically unrelated to the controversy over his hiking of drugs prices

he didn't do himself any favours there, though the judge has said that this is unrelated etc..etc.. it is a much more political system and while that statement by the judge is no doubt true with regards to his court/his decision etc.. PharmaBro's stunt with the drugs price drew all sorts of negative attention/put a target on him for prosecutors - he drew attention to himself in a bad way to rather powerful people at the time - the likes of Hillary Clinton etc.. so rather obvious that prosecutors would aggressively pursue any means of ****ing him
 
Couldn't happen to a nicer pharma bro.

dowie said:
he drew attention to himself in a bad way to rather powerful people at the time - the likes of Hillary Clinton etc.. so rather obvious that prosecutors would aggressively pursue any means of ****ing him
Click to expand...

You really need to stop posting gibberish like this.
 
Evangelion said:
You really need to stop posting gibberish like this.
Click to expand...

well that's a great argument... see the thread about the forum being rather toxic - perhaps try to add something constructive

I guess this journalist for Newsweek was posting gibberish too:

http://www.newsweek.com/martin-shkreli-drug-manipulation-daraprim-retrophin-375416

While Shkreli took a step back on Tuesday, saying he planned to drop Daraprim’s price to some undisclosed amount in response to the controversy, it was too late. His infamy is indelible; he will forever be known as the man who tried – and perhaps still will – gouge the most vulnerable. He remains as prominent a target for prosecutors as he was on Monday. If indicted, his name will still hit the headlines, a reality that was almost impossible to imagine a week ago when he was still a relative nobody.
Click to expand...

the defendant himself seems to be aware that he's was a target too:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...secutors-before-he-was-arrested/#7f58acfe3ecd

While he steadfastly defended his business practices, saying that he had a duty to shareholders, he admitted that he could well be a target for prosecutors.

"Politicians love to beat up on guys that are seen to be public enemies, if you will. That’s a great way to get elected," he said.

"It’s an even better way to get elected if you put them in jail," I responded.
Click to expand...
 
dowie said:
well that's a great argument... see the thread about the forum being rather toxic - perhaps try to add something constructive

I guess this journalist for Newsweek was posting gibberish too:
Click to expand...

He's a target for prosecution because he broke the law, not because 'he drew attention to himself in a bad way to rather powerful people at the time.' Clinton didn't have anything to do with his prosecution.
 
The defendant in a trial trying to blame "powerful people" who are "out to get him" as he's innocent but unpopular.

Well I've never ever heard of variants of that used by the defence before, and I'm sure no jury has either...

He broke the law in regards to several financial offences, if he'd not done that the worst that would have happened to him would have been that he'd have continued to be disliked and despised by people with some ounce of humanity for his actions towards those who needed life saving medication that he decided to go full on capitalist to max and charge several hundreds times more just because it was something the was a life saver without caring about the consequences (he's actually a good example of why pure unfettered capitalism without anything to hold it back is bad, as it's the same thinking the results in factory owners doing away with essential safety equipment and locking the staff in for the duration of a shift).
 
Evangelion said:
He's a target for prosecution because he broke the law, not because 'he drew attention to himself in a bad way to rather powerful people at the time.' Clinton didn't have anything to do with his prosecution.
Click to expand...

Yes anyone who breaks the law is potentially a "target" for prosecution in that sense, but that isn't what I was focusing on. When prosecutors are often rather more political in the US then someone prominent who breaks the law, especially if they are either hated or have done something to upset powerful people/the state, can make themselves much more of a target than they'd be otherwise.

As for Clinton, if you're strictly talking about direct involvement in the specific case itself then no and I've not claimed that. What I was referring to is that he attracted the attention of Hillary through his drugs price increase, that is part of what (IMHO) helped make him (more of) a target. (Incidentally the reason he has already been in jail for 6 months was because of his comments made re: a reward for someone getting a lock of Hillary Clinton's hair - the judge dismissed his claim that this was satire and stated this wasn't covered by his first amendment rights then locked him up.)
It wasn't just Hillary either... indeed other Presidential candidates (Bernie and Trump) condemned him too though she was the most prominent at the time (thus his rather misguided comments towards her).

I guess we might have to agree to disagree as this essentially boils down to a view of the US justice system and whether prosecutors are at all influenced by the prospect of prosecuting a high profile case (in this case one that was blatantly going to make headlines around the world). I'd say they very likely are to an extent and that serves to increase the chance of someone being pursued - that isn't a claim that he wouldn't have necessarily been prosecuted otherwise nor is it a claim that it directly impacted the case itself (as I tried to make clear earlier) - but simply a claim that his actions made him more of a target/increased his chances of someone pursuing him when he attracted significant negative media attention and negative comments from powerful people and when he decided to double down on all of this negative attention by making an even bigger **** of himself through further negative publicity/controversial tweets etc...

Werewolf said:
The defendant in a trial trying to blame "powerful people" who are "out to get him" as he's innocent but unpopular.

Well I've never ever heard of variants of that used by the defence before, and I'm sure no jury has either...
Click to expand...

I should note that I'm not claiming it is in any way a defence, but rather pointing out (something that ought to be fairly self evident re: the US justice system) that if you've committed some dubious acts in the past re: US laws then it probably isn't a good idea to considerable raise your profile especially when doing so in a very negative way nor is it a good idea to upset powerful people as it will likely make you more of a target/increase the chance of prosecutors going after you.
 
I donr think its an unreasonable assumption given america has elected positions in its justice system.

Obviously he has to have committd a crime but, faceless unknown financial criminal #561 is getting the standard allocation of resources and time. Big public enemy who happens to also be a financial criminal may be allocated some extra resoures and an expedited investigation handed to better prosecutors as it makes the DA look good before an election .

It can be as simple as his file lands on super dedicated daves desk rather than checked out carols desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom