3 ms·
In fairness it was: 1. "hey, this guy wants to buy this drug that we are producing as a public service but losing money on", 2. "oh shit - he raised the pric
by bsimpson 11y ago
In fairness it was:
1. "hey, this guy wants to buy this drug that we are producing as a public service but losing money on",
2. "oh shit - he raised the price to an astronomical figure and now we all look bad. oops",
3. "we're getting the rights back before this turns into a giant PR nightmare. while we're at it, let's raise the price to a sustainable level."
The article doesn't make it sound like there was any malice on Purdue's part.
- kjs3 11y agoI think you're basically right. If you read between the lines, this looks like a matter of Purdue thinking "let's pass this off to a true private sector entity that will allow the market to fix the pricing/profitability issues we have with this product", only to find out they sold it to a pack of fucking inhuman scum who think "let's see if we can exploit the shit out a vulnerable, sick population" is a business plan. Purdue was clearly naive, but they are clearly not malicious.