> The pharmaceutical exploitation that got the spotlight shined on him in the first place was reprehensible, to put it mildly. Can you explain why? If you thi

> The pharmaceutical exploitation that got the spotlight shined on him in the first place was reprehensible, to put it mildly. Can you explain why? If you think it's immoral for the profit motive to be in play when it comes to healthcare, then fine. But to single him out like he's some kind of extreme amoral outlier or something seems really unfair. Most people got the drug for free or at an extreme discount, and he spent all the profits on drug research. What he did is pretty much how the entire pharmaceutical industry works.