5 ms·

Are you kidding? He's human garbage, let him rot. It's astounding how people are being taken in by this con man.

kbenson 9y ago
Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage? You felt strongly enough to reply, maybe you can muster the effort to explain why you think that?
- wfunction 9y ago
  > Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertaining to them.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      > This case isn't about that. That wasn't your question, was it? You asked why he's human garbage, I explained why. I wasn't defending or attacking this case, I was explaining why some think he is human garbage.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Edit: Whoops, different person. See bottom. > Nowhere was I (or you) saying anything about this case. Your specific words in your original response were "He's human garbage, let him rot." That response was to me saying I think the details of the case lead me to believe that I think he should a light sentence. You very specifically noted through that euphemism that you think he shouldn't get a light sentence in this case because he's human garbage. Edit: Sorry. That was someone else. I was specifically asking in context, but that wasn't you originally. Mea Culpa. Leaving it here with this note so people that saw it previously can see me retraction.
        wfunction 9y ago
        For what it's worth, I've colored the usernames on my HN discussions so I don't make mistakes like this. Maybe HN should do that natively.
    - amyjess 9y ago
      Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means. I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.
        croon 9y ago
        Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? The justice system is meant to punish specific crimes, which it did done in both cases, but that doesn't prohibit you as a human to see it as karmic justice, for someone being a garbage human, wether legally or illegally.
        kbenson 9y ago
        > Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? Normally, no (which I said explicitly in another comment here). In this case, the activities are linked. There's no need to evade taxes if your income isn't illegal. Even so, I don't subscribe to the argument that it's entirely a good thing that we prosecuted Capone for tax evasion. We were unable to prove the actual criminal activities, so we instead looked at the fruits of those activities and used that. Another way to look at it is that the justice system completely failed initially. We couldn't build a case for the major crimes, but we could for the lesser crimes. He was still guilty of both (this is of course assuming his guilt). In Shkreli's case, we failed to prosecute originally because it's not a crime. The current case isn't related in the same way, and linking them and punishing in the latter because of people's perception of the former is akin to levying a harsher sentence on someone because of their interracial marriage in a region and time when that was legal but frowned upon. Social pressure unrelated to the issue at hand should not be relevant in court. Even if it's related to the issue at hand in the case, it should be restricted to sentencing (where it likely can't be removed anyway).
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        > Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        > I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. Restitution isn't the only reason for punishment. > I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing That he's clearly unapologetic and simply got lucky, and that this should factor into sentencing.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    And what's wrong with that? Be upset that the FDA only approved one company to make the drug. And it's not like anyone was hurt. Overall, insurers ended up paying a bit more (drugs are only 10-15% of US health care costs, and very few people need Daraprim). Big deal. If more people did this, then the system would get this issue addressed, maybe. On top of that, he said he was investing the profits into researching better drugs, though of course that's not a requirement.
    - Osmose 9y ago
      It is possible to be upset with both the system and the people using it.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility, then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness. At some point if your system is so terribly busted and no one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is making me blind to the issue here.
        croon 9y ago
        I found a rule loophole that allowed me to wear an Iron Man suit while playing in the NFL, so I made a career making millions of dollars a year. Aint I brave and admirable for pointing out the issue? I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the culture of praising exploiters of the system instead of promoting constructive players (who are less profitable, ie less sexy). I understand that the contrarian view to "The Man" is the easiest one to take, even if I think the identified "Man" is the diametrical opposite.
        manquer 9y ago
        The actual equivalent is that The loophole should only allow you and no one else.. so if rule is set like that who is to blame ?
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Can I presume you offer your skills to anyone who asks at a wage that reflects a minimum cost of living (ie no iPhone or other luxuries the bare minimum cost of living). If not what is your reasoning beyond apparent greed?
    - wfunction 9y ago
      I don't understand your comment.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include government services. My point is fairness and accusations of greed cut both ways, if fairness was truly the concern of the poster he would also cut his standard of living in order to benefit those much worse off than him. As he more than likely does not his argument is not "let's increase fairness" but rather "people in my class and I deserve more" and that's the same argument the people raising the drug prices are making.
        wfunction 9y ago
        It seems like you are completely missing the point. This has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is not that this guy had a random product and raised its price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine like they view ordinary services and products. Many people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is more to humanity than money.
  - jamra 9y ago
    I believe he reinvests 80% back into R&D. That's a pretty large sum. It's a lot more than the big companies. If a better drug for toxoplasmosis is developed that doesn't kill people, it would have been a great achievement.
- quantgenius 9y ago
  The price increase for Retrophin from 12.50 to 750 was NOT for no apparent reason. The previous owners of the rights sold the rights cheaply because they were unable to make money selling Retrophin, and in fact had large losses for years, despite multiple large price hikes. Businesses that continually lose money shut down. Most of the costs are large fixed regulatory costs for each drug manufactured that a business owner cannot cut, so the only realistic alternative is to raise the price dramatically. A USD 750 list price for a drug does NOT result in most people paying the list price. Most people get it via insurance, insurance companies pay a negotiated rate and you pay the copay (frequently higher than what the insurance company actually pays). Retrophin isn't a widely used drug so the effect on overall premiums was also tiny. His company literally offered the drug for free to anyone who for whom insurance didn't pay for it and who couldn't afford it. He also had a publicly stated business plan whereby he would use profits from Retrophin to invest in research into similar drugs which pharmaceutical companies have not been doing since Retrophin had been losing money. Given the byzantine manner in which payments are actually made in the US, there simply isn't any other way to price an orphan drug, i.e. a drug that very few people actually need. The only way to make a business that produces life-and-death drugs needed by very few people sustainable is to price the drug very high due to very high fixed regulatory costs per drug manufactured. If you want to change this, it needs legislation and FDA reform. Demonizing businesses that raise prices to ensure they make a reasonable profit, will only result in drugs that are life-and-death for a small number of people either getting taken off the market or not coming to the market in the first place. What's FAR more concerning is things like the recent increases in pricing for things like the Epi-Pen. Prices were raised 10x but also the expiration date on Epi-Pens is artificially short, so hospitals, schools etc are forced to throw away perfectly usable Epi-Pens for no good reason. Nobody talks about that because that price hike was by order of a senator's daughter. Shrekili just happens to be a bit of a PR nincompoop. What we really need is a populace that thinks carefully and independently and a press that actually spends money on investigative reporting instead of relying on what politicians tell them to report, which helps their bottom line since it's much cheaper.
  - quantgenius 9y ago
    I meant Dataprim not Retrophin. Sleep deprived.
enschlnd 9y ago
He's not kidding. He's not human garbage. It's not astounding that different people have different opinions at all. Your post suggests that you're very emotionally attached to your opinion, which is not good. Nor takes into consideration some basic premises which are necessary for people to understand one another.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >He's not human garbage. Yeah, but he is. Spare me the faux "logically objective" pose. There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in America". His actions have earned him this reputation.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    >"Spare me the logic" Yup, this is hackernews alright.
    - mwfunk 9y ago
      You made it look like "Spare me the logic" was a direct quote but it wasn't, and it clearly is not a summary of what was meant. Always argue against what people say and (even more importantly) what they mean, not against your own not-quite-accurate-but-easier-to-refute version of what people say.
  - to_bpr 9y ago
    >There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in America". Because that title sells clicks, much like every other piece of hyperbolic clickbait spewed onto the internet these days? If he truly is the most hated man in America, by fact, then it's simply further proof that Americans, as a collective entity, are willingly at the highest extremes of ignorance.
  - enschlnd 9y ago
    hey, spare me the faux "logically objective" pose, little guy. I'm the only one that can be taken seriously here.
charlesdm 9y ago
Plenty of people who one would classify as "human garbage" make hundreds of millions. Frankly, it does not matter. What matters is: 1) did people lose money, due to some scam? and 2) did he do anything illegal.
- singtings 9y ago
  Well he committed fraud but people did not lose money. So yes to question 2 and no to question 1.
mindfulplay 9y ago
Regardless of big an asshole he is based on seeing the Vice interview and thinking about the big fraud pharma industry makes me think he is actually way better than the conniving people who run big pharma. This guy speaks out and maybe he is an asshole and suddenly everyone hates him. The rest keep their profits to themselves and we don't seem to care or mind.
- beginpanic 9y ago
  Everyone has choices to make. Martin could have easily not been an asshole to cancer patients or investors at his fund. You want to let him off the hook just because he said "yup I'm a dick" while he was making the choice to be a dick and profited massively from being a dick? Acknowledging the fact that what you're doing is wrong does not suddenly make that thing right. It's still wrong. And you're still an asshole for doing it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  Of course we care. People are criticizing the pharma industry's practices and calling for change all the time. Shkreli is a particularly obnoxious symptom, but he's not the disease.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage? You felt strongly enough to reply, maybe you can muster the effort to explain why you think that?

wfunction 9y ago
> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?
- kbenson 9y ago
  > Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertaining to them.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    > This case isn't about that. That wasn't your question, was it? You asked why he's human garbage, I explained why. I wasn't defending or attacking this case, I was explaining why some think he is human garbage.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Edit: Whoops, different person. See bottom. > Nowhere was I (or you) saying anything about this case. Your specific words in your original response were "He's human garbage, let him rot." That response was to me saying I think the details of the case lead me to believe that I think he should a light sentence. You very specifically noted through that euphemism that you think he shouldn't get a light sentence in this case because he's human garbage. Edit: Sorry. That was someone else. I was specifically asking in context, but that wasn't you originally. Mea Culpa. Leaving it here with this note so people that saw it previously can see me retraction.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        For what it's worth, I've colored the usernames on my HN discussions so I don't make mistakes like this. Maybe HN should do that natively.
  - amyjess 9y ago
    Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means. I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.
      - croon 9y ago
        Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? The justice system is meant to punish specific crimes, which it did done in both cases, but that doesn't prohibit you as a human to see it as karmic justice, for someone being a garbage human, wether legally or illegally.
        kbenson 9y ago
        > Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? Normally, no (which I said explicitly in another comment here). In this case, the activities are linked. There's no need to evade taxes if your income isn't illegal. Even so, I don't subscribe to the argument that it's entirely a good thing that we prosecuted Capone for tax evasion. We were unable to prove the actual criminal activities, so we instead looked at the fruits of those activities and used that. Another way to look at it is that the justice system completely failed initially. We couldn't build a case for the major crimes, but we could for the lesser crimes. He was still guilty of both (this is of course assuming his guilt). In Shkreli's case, we failed to prosecute originally because it's not a crime. The current case isn't related in the same way, and linking them and punishing in the latter because of people's perception of the former is akin to levying a harsher sentence on someone because of their interracial marriage in a region and time when that was legal but frowned upon. Social pressure unrelated to the issue at hand should not be relevant in court. Even if it's related to the issue at hand in the case, it should be restricted to sentencing (where it likely can't be removed anyway).
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. Restitution isn't the only reason for punishment. > I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing That he's clearly unapologetic and simply got lucky, and that this should factor into sentencing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  And what's wrong with that? Be upset that the FDA only approved one company to make the drug. And it's not like anyone was hurt. Overall, insurers ended up paying a bit more (drugs are only 10-15% of US health care costs, and very few people need Daraprim). Big deal. If more people did this, then the system would get this issue addressed, maybe. On top of that, he said he was investing the profits into researching better drugs, though of course that's not a requirement.
  - Osmose 9y ago
    It is possible to be upset with both the system and the people using it.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility, then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness. At some point if your system is so terribly busted and no one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is making me blind to the issue here.
      - croon 9y ago
        I found a rule loophole that allowed me to wear an Iron Man suit while playing in the NFL, so I made a career making millions of dollars a year. Aint I brave and admirable for pointing out the issue? I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the culture of praising exploiters of the system instead of promoting constructive players (who are less profitable, ie less sexy). I understand that the contrarian view to "The Man" is the easiest one to take, even if I think the identified "Man" is the diametrical opposite.
        manquer 9y ago
        The actual equivalent is that The loophole should only allow you and no one else.. so if rule is set like that who is to blame ?
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Can I presume you offer your skills to anyone who asks at a wage that reflects a minimum cost of living (ie no iPhone or other luxuries the bare minimum cost of living). If not what is your reasoning beyond apparent greed?
  - wfunction 9y ago
    I don't understand your comment.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include government services. My point is fairness and accusations of greed cut both ways, if fairness was truly the concern of the poster he would also cut his standard of living in order to benefit those much worse off than him. As he more than likely does not his argument is not "let's increase fairness" but rather "people in my class and I deserve more" and that's the same argument the people raising the drug prices are making.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        It seems like you are completely missing the point. This has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is not that this guy had a random product and raised its price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine like they view ordinary services and products. Many people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is more to humanity than money.
- jamra 9y ago
  I believe he reinvests 80% back into R&D. That's a pretty large sum. It's a lot more than the big companies. If a better drug for toxoplasmosis is developed that doesn't kill people, it would have been a great achievement.
quantgenius 9y ago
The price increase for Retrophin from 12.50 to 750 was NOT for no apparent reason. The previous owners of the rights sold the rights cheaply because they were unable to make money selling Retrophin, and in fact had large losses for years, despite multiple large price hikes. Businesses that continually lose money shut down. Most of the costs are large fixed regulatory costs for each drug manufactured that a business owner cannot cut, so the only realistic alternative is to raise the price dramatically. A USD 750 list price for a drug does NOT result in most people paying the list price. Most people get it via insurance, insurance companies pay a negotiated rate and you pay the copay (frequently higher than what the insurance company actually pays). Retrophin isn't a widely used drug so the effect on overall premiums was also tiny. His company literally offered the drug for free to anyone who for whom insurance didn't pay for it and who couldn't afford it. He also had a publicly stated business plan whereby he would use profits from Retrophin to invest in research into similar drugs which pharmaceutical companies have not been doing since Retrophin had been losing money. Given the byzantine manner in which payments are actually made in the US, there simply isn't any other way to price an orphan drug, i.e. a drug that very few people actually need. The only way to make a business that produces life-and-death drugs needed by very few people sustainable is to price the drug very high due to very high fixed regulatory costs per drug manufactured. If you want to change this, it needs legislation and FDA reform. Demonizing businesses that raise prices to ensure they make a reasonable profit, will only result in drugs that are life-and-death for a small number of people either getting taken off the market or not coming to the market in the first place. What's FAR more concerning is things like the recent increases in pricing for things like the Epi-Pen. Prices were raised 10x but also the expiration date on Epi-Pens is artificially short, so hospitals, schools etc are forced to throw away perfectly usable Epi-Pens for no good reason. Nobody talks about that because that price hike was by order of a senator's daughter. Shrekili just happens to be a bit of a PR nincompoop. What we really need is a populace that thinks carefully and independently and a press that actually spends money on investigative reporting instead of relying on what politicians tell them to report, which helps their bottom line since it's much cheaper.
- quantgenius 9y ago
  I meant Dataprim not Retrophin. Sleep deprived.

enschlnd 9y ago

He's not kidding. He's not human garbage. It's not astounding that different people have different opinions at all. Your post suggests that you're very emotionally attached to your opinion, which is not good. Nor takes into consideration some basic premises which are necessary for people to understand one another.

Sangermaine 9y ago
>He's not human garbage. Yeah, but he is. Spare me the faux "logically objective" pose. There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in America". His actions have earned him this reputation.
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  >"Spare me the logic" Yup, this is hackernews alright.
  - mwfunk 9y ago
    You made it look like "Spare me the logic" was a direct quote but it wasn't, and it clearly is not a summary of what was meant. Always argue against what people say and (even more importantly) what they mean, not against your own not-quite-accurate-but-easier-to-refute version of what people say.
- to_bpr 9y ago
  >There is a reason he's known as the "most hated man in America". Because that title sells clicks, much like every other piece of hyperbolic clickbait spewed onto the internet these days? If he truly is the most hated man in America, by fact, then it's simply further proof that Americans, as a collective entity, are willingly at the highest extremes of ignorance.
- enschlnd 9y ago
  hey, spare me the faux "logically objective" pose, little guy. I'm the only one that can be taken seriously here.

charlesdm 9y ago

Plenty of people who one would classify as "human garbage" make hundreds of millions. Frankly, it does not matter. What matters is: 1) did people lose money, due to some scam? and 2) did he do anything illegal.

singtings 9y ago
Well he committed fraud but people did not lose money. So yes to question 2 and no to question 1.

mindfulplay 9y ago

Regardless of big an asshole he is based on seeing the Vice interview and thinking about the big fraud pharma industry makes me think he is actually way better than the conniving people who run big pharma. This guy speaks out and maybe he is an asshole and suddenly everyone hates him. The rest keep their profits to themselves and we don't seem to care or mind.

beginpanic 9y ago
Everyone has choices to make. Martin could have easily not been an asshole to cancer patients or investors at his fund. You want to let him off the hook just because he said "yup I'm a dick" while he was making the choice to be a dick and profited massively from being a dick? Acknowledging the fact that what you're doing is wrong does not suddenly make that thing right. It's still wrong. And you're still an asshole for doing it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Sangermaine 9y ago
Of course we care. People are criticizing the pharma industry's practices and calling for change all the time. Shkreli is a particularly obnoxious symptom, but he's not the disease.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]