7 ms·

Martin Shkreli: Controversial 'pharma bro' refuses to testify over HIV drug

4 points by testrun 11y ago

MrTonyD 11y ago
It's routine for riders to be put on bills to benefit the rich or big business - I'd like to see a rider to make a law to throw this guy in jail and take his money. Our society is supposed to serve our community - and this fellow has proven his disdain for our community values. Some claim that he is doing nothing illegal - well, we should change that - it should be illegal to act against our society.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  What you suggest is a bill of attainder, and is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, for very good reasons.
  - MrTonyD 11y ago
    It's fine to quote theory, but there are plenty of examples of laws passed which apply to a single person or small group. My impression is that they are written in such a way as to make them seem to apply to a general case - which just happens to only apply to one person.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class, even in theory. So the practice you point to.is irrelevant. Laws which declare a particular person a criminal and/or impose criminal penalties like fines or imprisonment on them, OTOH, are unconstitutional, and that's not just theory that is neglected in practice.
      - MrTonyD 11y ago
        You say: "Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class" - but isn't that exactly what would be needed to define the actions of this scumbag as illegal and punishable by fines and imprisonment? This doesn't seem irrelevant to me. I've read some of the laws protecting billionaires. And they can be very specific, applying only to people who live in a particular town and who have entered specific agreements. So, if we can use these laws to absolve the rich, we should be able to use them to define criminals against our society.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        You could ban the things he's done, and throw him in jail if he does them again. You can't throw him in jail based on new laws for things he's already done (post-hoc law), or based merely on who he is (bill of attainder).
bobby_9x 11y ago
"The American people are fed up with the blatant profiteering of pharmaceutical company CEOs like Martin Shkreli. It must end." The real problem is all of the regulations you need to go through with the FDA to get a drug approved. If it didn't take millions of thousands of dollars and a team of lawyers to get drugs approved in 10 years, the free market would force the hand of these companies and everyone's costs would decrease. The government is equally greedy and more greed will not fix the problem. In fact, most countries have cheaper drug costs because of the R&D that is done in the US. Preventing profit (like what Sanders will inevitably do with his health care plans) will be pretty bad for important drugs worldwide.
- dalke 11y ago
  Your comment isn't all that relevant as Turing did NOT spend 'millions of thousands of dollars and a team of lawyers to get drugs approved'. Daraprim is a generic which had been available for over 60 years. There were no R&D costs in this case. Instead, Turing was the sole provider of Daraprim. It switched to a closed distribution model so other generic manufacturers couldn't show equivalence, which is needed for FDA approval, then jacked up the price. At least, that's my understanding. In any case, it's far from what you suggest is the case.
- gbeforeg 11y ago
  There is nothing wrong with requiring research and development in medicine. It keeps everyone safer. Maybe you should look instead at how the US is effectively the only country in the world which allows companies to market prescription drugs to consumers (the other being NZ). This inherently undermines best medical practise and morality. Some mega pharma companies spend up to twice as much on marketing as R&D, literally tens of billions. I for one know where I'd rather have them save a bit of cash. Imagine if they actually competed on making the most effective medicine instead of the best commercials.
coreyp_1 11y ago
First, IANAL. Second, I don't understand how raising the price can be illegal. If the company owns the product, then they should be able to set its price. Even if it makes people mad, or even if people die, his company has been granted ownership of this drug, and therefore should be able to set the price as they see fit. (I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. I think he is a horrible person. I'm just trying to objectively consider the legal side as I understand it.) Third, this is not an example of the failure of capitalism. Pure capitalism would allow other companies to provide the same product, and competition and the free market would determine the price. If anything, this is an exacerbated example of government-sanctioned monopolies of specific products, as provided under patent law. (I'm trying to determine a better word to describe it... perhaps fascism?)
- dalke 11y ago
  A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work for most cases of drug development. The elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis is quite instructive, as is the history of snake oil, quack medicine, and radium cure-alls. These regulations mean pharmaceutical development is far from being a free market. Some drugs, like colchicine and progesterone, were developed decades ago. The FDA would like them to be analyzed under the latest regulations, and is willing to grant market exclusivity as a way to entice companies to do this. A generic producer must also prove that their formulation is identical to the formulation which was granted FDA approval. Turing used a closed distribution model, where only patients could get access to the drugs, not potential competitors. As such, the companies did not "own the product", as you suggest. Not even the pseudo-ownership of controlling a limited patent monopoly. You can interpret this a lousy decisions by the FDA that have nothing to do with capitalism. Which is correct. But the FDA itself was put in place for two reasons: 1) pure capitalism has a track record of failing in this area, and 2) traditionally the companies in this field knew to be greedy but not too greedy, so the rules weren't set up for 'horrible' rule-lawyers. Because if they were too greedy, the lawmakers could and will change the laws again. So no, it's not illegal. But since the profits are made inside a highly regulated marketplace, it's best to not piss off the people who decide the regulations.

4 points by testrun 11y ago

It's routine for riders to be put on bills to benefit the rich or big business - I'd like to see a rider to make a law to throw this guy in jail and take his money. Our society is supposed to serve our community - and this fellow has proven his disdain for our community values. Some claim that he is doing nothing illegal - well, we should change that - it should be illegal to act against our society.

dragonwriter 11y ago
What you suggest is a bill of attainder, and is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, for very good reasons.
- MrTonyD 11y ago
  It's fine to quote theory, but there are plenty of examples of laws passed which apply to a single person or small group. My impression is that they are written in such a way as to make them seem to apply to a general case - which just happens to only apply to one person.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class, even in theory. So the practice you point to.is irrelevant. Laws which declare a particular person a criminal and/or impose criminal penalties like fines or imprisonment on them, OTOH, are unconstitutional, and that's not just theory that is neglected in practice.
    - MrTonyD 11y ago
      You say: "Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class" - but isn't that exactly what would be needed to define the actions of this scumbag as illegal and punishable by fines and imprisonment? This doesn't seem irrelevant to me. I've read some of the laws protecting billionaires. And they can be very specific, applying only to people who live in a particular town and who have entered specific agreements. So, if we can use these laws to absolve the rich, we should be able to use them to define criminals against our society.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        You could ban the things he's done, and throw him in jail if he does them again. You can't throw him in jail based on new laws for things he's already done (post-hoc law), or based merely on who he is (bill of attainder).

bobby_9x 11y ago

"The American people are fed up with the blatant profiteering of pharmaceutical company CEOs like Martin Shkreli. It must end." The real problem is all of the regulations you need to go through with the FDA to get a drug approved. If it didn't take millions of thousands of dollars and a team of lawyers to get drugs approved in 10 years, the free market would force the hand of these companies and everyone's costs would decrease. The government is equally greedy and more greed will not fix the problem. In fact, most countries have cheaper drug costs because of the R&D that is done in the US. Preventing profit (like what Sanders will inevitably do with his health care plans) will be pretty bad for important drugs worldwide.

dalke 11y ago
Your comment isn't all that relevant as Turing did NOT spend 'millions of thousands of dollars and a team of lawyers to get drugs approved'. Daraprim is a generic which had been available for over 60 years. There were no R&D costs in this case. Instead, Turing was the sole provider of Daraprim. It switched to a closed distribution model so other generic manufacturers couldn't show equivalence, which is needed for FDA approval, then jacked up the price. At least, that's my understanding. In any case, it's far from what you suggest is the case.
gbeforeg 11y ago
There is nothing wrong with requiring research and development in medicine. It keeps everyone safer. Maybe you should look instead at how the US is effectively the only country in the world which allows companies to market prescription drugs to consumers (the other being NZ). This inherently undermines best medical practise and morality. Some mega pharma companies spend up to twice as much on marketing as R&D, literally tens of billions. I for one know where I'd rather have them save a bit of cash. Imagine if they actually competed on making the most effective medicine instead of the best commercials.

coreyp_1 11y ago

First, IANAL. Second, I don't understand how raising the price can be illegal. If the company owns the product, then they should be able to set its price. Even if it makes people mad, or even if people die, his company has been granted ownership of this drug, and therefore should be able to set the price as they see fit. (I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. I think he is a horrible person. I'm just trying to objectively consider the legal side as I understand it.) Third, this is not an example of the failure of capitalism. Pure capitalism would allow other companies to provide the same product, and competition and the free market would determine the price. If anything, this is an exacerbated example of government-sanctioned monopolies of specific products, as provided under patent law. (I'm trying to determine a better word to describe it... perhaps fascism?)

dalke 11y ago
A pharmaceutical company has to work within a set of laws that limit what it can sell. These were developed in large part because "pure capitalism" didn't work for most cases of drug development. The elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis is quite instructive, as is the history of snake oil, quack medicine, and radium cure-alls. These regulations mean pharmaceutical development is far from being a free market. Some drugs, like colchicine and progesterone, were developed decades ago. The FDA would like them to be analyzed under the latest regulations, and is willing to grant market exclusivity as a way to entice companies to do this. A generic producer must also prove that their formulation is identical to the formulation which was granted FDA approval. Turing used a closed distribution model, where only patients could get access to the drugs, not potential competitors. As such, the companies did not "own the product", as you suggest. Not even the pseudo-ownership of controlling a limited patent monopoly. You can interpret this a lousy decisions by the FDA that have nothing to do with capitalism. Which is correct. But the FDA itself was put in place for two reasons: 1) pure capitalism has a track record of failing in this area, and 2) traditionally the companies in this field knew to be greedy but not too greedy, so the rules weren't set up for 'horrible' rule-lawyers. Because if they were too greedy, the lawmakers could and will change the laws again. So no, it's not illegal. But since the profits are made inside a highly regulated marketplace, it's best to not piss off the people who decide the regulations.