Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was less surprised by the vandalism than I was by how tame it was.
Looks like it's gotten a bit worse: http://imgur.com/a/7X0Wt
[deleted]
Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
381–390 of 461 posts
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reading of free market theory with which most people, including its founder, would agree, is one where the goal is to maximize utility, not wealth. This is a vitally important distinction, and one that the layperson often overlooks. I would argue that human life is not limitless in utility and the free market establishes a price range on it. Like it or not, there is a price tag on the utility of a human life. If…
I suppose the statement you are latching onto is where I said that it is never economically optimal to allow someone to die in exchange for higher profit, so allow me to clarify. In this case, it seems nearly impossible to make a concrete case that links this monopolistically-determined price increase to something that comes close to morally justifying the potential loss of human lives. And as we know, pharma is not…
I don't see how pharma is not a free market in this case.
The drug in question isn't even protected by a patent anymore. Other companies are free to create a generic version of it.
Government regulation has nothing to do with this. The free market has everything to do with this. The price of a life saving drug is worth either all your money or however much the seller wants to charge for it, as decided by the free market.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit of a fantasy, isn't it? Pharma companies don't re-invent the same wheel: even in cases where they're pursuing similar avenues of research, the drugs being developed share sometimes significant differences (and in many cases, even insignificant differences can later be found to be more significant than first believed). Even if companies were somehow able to collaborate without any problem, the end result…
Every way of dealing with something has its flaws, the point is to fix them. The patent system is flawed in its foundation, i.e. claiming a discovery for yourself and keeping this technology away from the rest of humanity. For the rest, I wouldn't know why there wouldn't be multiple medicines. Labs would still come up with multiple compounds that have more or less the same result, and if not, research would continue…
It deeply concerns me that so many people fundamentally misunderstand the point of patents. The point isn't to grant ownership over tech simply for being the first to file.
Patents, as originally intended, are to encourage documenting the invention and the eventual transfer of this knowledge to the public sector. They were never intended to be abused and twisted for personal gain as they are today.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was done slowly, it could be an extremely effective strategy. Not too different from what Berkshire did with See's Candies. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/13/warren-buff...
That's really very different. Berkshire isn't undercutting anybody in price with See's, just getting a premium for a brand name.
That is a fair distinction. I believe the common thing between them is exercising untapped pricing power.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
>spending billions in capital developing drugs to save lives Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money. And doing it to make money, given the patent system, is the less ethical option when others would do it to save lives but are now forbidden to do such.
Who cares why they're doing it--the point is that their money-making endeavors have the effect of saving lives, while other companies spend tons of capital on things that do not have the effect of saving lives. And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people.
> And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organizati...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
> The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people.
The patent system does prevent people from getting at lower costs. I continue to have hope for countries that invalidate drug patents, and for further methods to be developed to drive down the cost of drug production (so as to reduce the barrier to entry for drug production).
If the patent system doesn't stop the non-profit development of drugs, then the breaking of patents and the pirating of patented drugs should in no way significantly dent pharmaceutical company profits, right?
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have no moral objections to an alternative producer being set up (by the government or anyone else), so long as nobody is forced to buy from either one. There may be some practical issues (such as the regulator being a member of the same organization as the regulated producer), or issues with the scope (and scope creep) of the project, but those are only related issues.
So you could be in favor of nationalisation, by way of making it common property, of the IP that supports his business, but not nationalisation of the business itself.
The IP that supports the business is already common property. As far as I understand it, the outrage here stems from exactly this fact, that the IP is common property, but they dramatically increased the prices. I am not sure what the reaction would have been if this was a patent-protected drug. Presumably the patent exists to allow for this type of dramatic price change (; though I do not support the current patent system).
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you could be in favor of nationalisation, by way of making it common property, of the IP that supports his business, but not nationalisation of the business itself.
The IP that supports the business is already common property. As far as I understand it, the outrage here stems from exactly this fact, that the IP is common property, but they dramatically increased the prices. I am not sure what the reaction would have been if this was a patent-protected drug. Presumably the patent exists to allow for this type of dramatic price change (; though I do not support the current patent…
I understand that they have currently secured a de-facto exclusive distribution right for the US market from the FDA. Ok, it isn't classic IP, but it has the same effect and as far as I understand it is transferable property, as otherwise this company would not have been able to acquire the rights in this way.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure he'd be happy to let that go unprotested ... "Skrelicame to attention after his attempts to have the FDA not approve drugs being produced by companies whose stocks he was shorting". Who needs morality in the free market, right?
That is a very biased view of the situation. Pharma companies try to put the best face on data to get a drug approved. Analysts try to approach the data in an impartial way. If an analyst looks at the data and sees issues, it makes sense both ethically and financially to push for the drug not to be approved. Ethically, if the drug doesn't work as advertised, it is better that it is not sold as a cure. Informing the F…
Given the multiple issues Martin has faced over the years, I think it's fair to say that 'impartiality' is the least of his motivations.
"If an analyst looks at the data and sees issues" - what are they? A stockbroker, or pharmaceutical scientist? How many are both?
It would only make financial sense to push for the drug not to be approved -if- you had a position that made a gain from that, but let's not pretend like Martin was doing so out of any source of ethics.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Drugs are health." Only a sick (person/group/society/culture) would link them like this. Drugs are, in fact, dis-ease. They are the opposite of health. Real food, real exercise, real work and real sleep. That's health. Drugs are at best dis-ease and at worst tools of predation and exploitation.
Why don't you come back and sing that tune when you're old.
Presumably I will be in a state of dis-ease ... I will be sick in one or more ways.
You're making my point for me.
Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that the overall result would be other companies start manufacturing the generic and sell the drug for maybe 20% less than Martin and over time the price drops back down towards where it once started. In the meantime, this company either goes bankrupt or is sold off. Or the government passes a law capping how much you can raise the price of a generic drug over so many years.
That's the loophole though, the quantities are so small that realistically, no pharmaceutical company has the incentive to make their version of the drug, even at $750 per dose. There are still costs to making a drug that's off-patent, and sometimes the number of patients being treated is only in the double digits. Additionally, a competing drug released at say, $500 per dose would still be considered predatory anywa…
I don't get this, the drug is available from Sigma[1] for $51.50 per 250mg, with a dosage of 50-75mg per day for a patient. So clearly someone can make it more cheaply. I get that Sigma is research chemicals not medical grade, but seems to me someone could figure this out. FDA approval must be the issue.
[1] http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/fluka/46706?lang...