What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight (1 Viewer)

Fat Nick said:
cstu said:
-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector.
Click to expand...
If companies can fire people and still get the job done they will - in fact they have a fiduciary duty to stockholders to do so.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But I guess to still echo my point, when you look at the list of the most profitable companies in the world, Pharma companies aren't the ones driving the list these days. It's Tech, Banking, and Oil...I think the most profitable "Pharma" company is J&J, which is honestly a consumer conglomerate with only a portion in Pharma.
Click to expand...
My view that the government should manufacture generic drugs to control costs isn't based on any opinion about the extent of Pharma profits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw said:
This reminds me of the gun situation.

"Nothing can be done" said the only nation in the world with these kinds of problems.
Click to expand...
Clifford said:
Wasn't the same slippery slope argument made any time there was ever a government mandated cost increase or regulation of any industry? Haven't we seen that despite what many called massive regulation increases the financial industry continues to make money hand over fist?

Obamacare passed in 2010 and all we heard was that small business were going to have to shut down / fire all their workers because of the onerous requirements.

http://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs-data-nfib-201509.png

Once people got past the doomsday predictions hiring was positive again.

You're not going to kill R&D because #1, there will still be researchers who actually give a #### about healing people and curing disease and #2 because there will still be people who want to market their drugs and make money.

Maybe some people who were used to the game being completely rigged in their favor will retire, but there will always be #1 and #2 unless we completely remove it from the private sector.
Click to expand...
I think these two posts are somewhat related - First, Jackstraw, I don't think anyone in either case (this or gun control) is saying "Nothing can be done." I'm not addressing the gun control side (there's a thread for that) but at least in this case, I think what most of us are noting that you can't just throw in regulations without considering the possible consequences. I agree that we're one of the only nations in the world with these problems - We also can't just flip a switch and adopt another country's model overnight. We have to live with the consequences of how our system is now, and move towards something better.

Clifford, I agree that many regulations often work themselves out in the end. Even with regulations, free-market economies somehow find their profit niches...I also agree that you'll never completely kill drug research, but you could severely damage commercially-driven (as opposed to educational) R&D with regulations that short-sightedly impose mandatory drug pricing. As I said earlier, one of the reasons mandatory pricing and single-payer philosophies work overseas is because we don't have them in the US, which essentially means the US overpays, and funds R&D for the world. If you take that away, you take away income from Pharma companies. Couple the inability to charge a premium price for a product with the increased generic competition, and you're really starting to squeeze some of these R&D-based pharma companies.

I think if you're going to limit the cost companies can charge for developed drugs, you also need to increase the amount of time they have patent exclusivity. Allow a company to sell 1,000,000 doses/year for 35 years at $20/dose rather than 1,000,000 doses/year for 20 years at $45/dose. Companies are forced to squeeze every dollar they can out of a product because once it hits patent expiration, it's a free-for-all. Extend the exclusivity periods, and limit the profit margins. It makes drugs more affordable, AND puts the funds in the pockets of the companies that are actually doing R&D...not in the hands of companies that come along and manufacture someone else's hard work for less.

 
Clifford said:
Rove! said:
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton to the rescue! Calling this price gouging, she is proposing a $250 cap on monthly payments for chronic users of these types of medicines.

Go Hillary!
Click to expand...
This sounds like a simpleton answer to a complex problemsThe cure is worse than the problemYou're going to kill r&ad

Any drug which is relatively expensive to manufacture is going have a hard time finding a home

Drugs that are cheap to make would still be subject to gouging

We have a ####load of dumb candidates.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the same slippery slope argument made any time there was ever a government mandated cost increase or regulation of any industry? Haven't we seen that despite what many called massive regulation increases the financial industry continues to make money hand over fist?Obamacare passed in 2010 and all we heard was that small business were going to have to shut down / fire all their workers because of the onerous requirements.

http://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs-data-nfib-201509.png

Once people got past the doomsday predictions hiring was positive again.

You're not going to kill R&D because #1, there will still be researchers who actually give a #### about healing people and curing disease and #2 because there will still be people who want to market their drugs and make money.

Maybe some people who were used to the game being completely rigged in their favor will retire, but there will always be #1 and #2 unless we completely remove it from the private sector.
Click to expand...
This specific proposal is dumb. Placing an arbtitray cap is silly in so many ways. Government controlling the markets usually makes things worse. Government's proper role is to make the markets run efficiently and fairly - which is what many regulations do. An orphan drug creates an inefficient market. Action is required, but price controls is a simpleton approach...

 
Sammy3469 said:
Figures this DB is under investigation by the SEC for a whole host of securities violations and by the Brooklyn DA. Have fun in Butner.

http://www.newsweek.com/martin-shkreli-drug-manipulation-daraprim-retrophin-375416
Click to expand...
Not surprising...given his general attitude towards this, he seems like a bit of a tool. Somebody who got to his position and really knew what they were doing would know that you better cover your butt and fly under the radar. It's tough to get to his spot without doing something questionable, and as soon as the public has eyes on you, you're in trouble.

 
Fat Nick said:
Sammy3469 said:
Figures this DB is under investigation by the SEC for a whole host of securities violations and by the Brooklyn DA. Have fun in Butner.

http://www.newsweek.com/martin-shkreli-drug-manipulation-daraprim-retrophin-375416
Click to expand...
Not surprising...given his general attitude towards this, he seems like a bit of a tool. Somebody who got to his position and really knew what they were doing would know that you better cover your butt and fly under the radar. It's tough to get to his spot without doing something questionable, and as soon as the public has eyes on you, you're in trouble.
Click to expand...
The SEC in general has been really focused lately on cracking down on Internet pump and dumpers. He just took it to the next level by doing it while being the CEO of a public company. The fact he thought he could get away with the double dealing is comical especially since it puts the Justice Dept in the equation. Dope.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
This specific proposal is dumb. Placing an arbtitray cap is silly in so many ways. Government controlling the markets usually makes things worse. Government's proper role is to make the markets run efficiently and fairly - which is what many regulations do. An orphan drug creates an inefficient market. Action is required, but price controls is a simpleton approach...
Click to expand...
Is anyone shocked this is Hillary's proposal?

 
Fat Nick said:
Clifford said:
Fat Nick said:
I used to work in "Big Pharma. I'm not defending these practices, but I will say that it's a lot more complicated than the average person thinks, and there are some 2nd-line impacts that people often fail to realize.

-In the case of these old, smaller market drugs, the reason they're expensive is because of the effort that goes into making small quantities. Manufacturing lines have to be set-up for the drug...the fixed costs of that goes into the overhead of that line's run...On large volume drugs (statins, etc) the costs are minimal per pill...on these low-volume drugs, the cost per pill can be very high. It's akin to a "custom" item. You pay for the overhead, not the actual item. If it were profitable for generics to do it, they'd have found a way, but at low volume, there's no money in it.

-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector. It's much harder for people to understand and grasp the R&D that goes into a drug, resulting in a pill that costs $200, than it is an iPhone that costs $500...but both have their share of expenses and challenges. The cost of every drug that a company TRIED to bring to market and failed is rolled into the cost of the drugs that made it. So for every pill you take, you're paying for some of the pills that didn't succeed.

-You can't just start capping the costs of these things via regulations...Let's face it. We have great drugs because there's profit to be had in discovering them. If you start limiting the profit, you'll stifle the advancement. It's sad, but it's true. The first thing that starts to get cut when a pharma company is squeezed on earnings is R&D.

-People view generics as these great "saviors" that come in and provide affordable medicine. Generics allow the consumer to buy cheaper medicine by not contributing at all to the development of new drugs (if anything, they hinder it). It's the classic example of people wanting what's best unless they have to pay for it.

I'm 100% positive there are counters to most of these...I'm sure folks have/will cover them. I just wanted to point out that it's not so cut and dry. This particular article seems a bit excessive, but ask yourself this: What if that drug wasn't profitable at the old price. What if the company HAD to charge the new price to break even. Would you rather them stop selling it altogether, leaving no viable source for the drug, or sell it at the higher price?
Click to expand...
I have no experience so not challenging you on much of this, but are you relying solely on layoffs as proof of economic hard times? I know in my industry layoffs are a standard move to get a slight bump in the stock price, and often come hand in hand with double-digit YoY growth and record earnings.
Click to expand...
No...I just didn't feel like typing out all the reasons and figured that was a relatable one. Completely see your point, but many pharma companies are way beyond "normal rightsizing layoffs." I can tell you that Big Pharma is not in the midst of a profit boom, or record earnings. Many of them are really struggling to deal with patent expirations, and the end of the "blockbuster" drug. Most of the big statins are now off-patent. The small-molecule pipeline is dry. The biological pipeline is expensive and tough.

I could go on...but I'll stand behind the statement that Big Pharma companies as a whole are not making money hand-over-fist on their pharma products.
Click to expand...
Really? Pfizer made 22 billion in profit in 2013. Novartis made nearly 10 billion. IIRC Pfizers 42% profit margin was one of the, if not the, highest of any company. And Big Pharma is more profitable than Big Oil, carmakers, and media companies. I have a little trouble buying the whole we're going broke meme.

 
mquinnjr said:
Amused to Death said:
johnnyrock62000 said:
LOVE THIS!

San Diego Company Slaps Pharma Bro Down by Offering Same Cancer Drug for $1 a Pill
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...
Free market capitalism at work, and I'm glad to see it. It was a matter of time, as Daraprim lost patent exclusivity in the 70's. I hope Imprimis delivers well here once the FDA approves their generic version of this compound.
Click to expand...
Thats not free market capitalism at work... that's social justice at work.

Someone was so ####### tired of broken capitalism they decided to say "#### capitalism" and basically give away a product to those people in need.

 
NCCommish said:
Fat Nick said:
Clifford said:
Fat Nick said:
I used to work in "Big Pharma. I'm not defending these practices, but I will say that it's a lot more complicated than the average person thinks, and there are some 2nd-line impacts that people often fail to realize.

-In the case of these old, smaller market drugs, the reason they're expensive is because of the effort that goes into making small quantities. Manufacturing lines have to be set-up for the drug...the fixed costs of that goes into the overhead of that line's run...On large volume drugs (statins, etc) the costs are minimal per pill...on these low-volume drugs, the cost per pill can be very high. It's akin to a "custom" item. You pay for the overhead, not the actual item. If it were profitable for generics to do it, they'd have found a way, but at low volume, there's no money in it.

-People often don't realize that Pharma companies aren't "obscenely rich." If Pharma companies made as much money as people think they do, there wouldn't be massive layoffs in the sector. It's much harder for people to understand and grasp the R&D that goes into a drug, resulting in a pill that costs $200, than it is an iPhone that costs $500...but both have their share of expenses and challenges. The cost of every drug that a company TRIED to bring to market and failed is rolled into the cost of the drugs that made it. So for every pill you take, you're paying for some of the pills that didn't succeed.

-You can't just start capping the costs of these things via regulations...Let's face it. We have great drugs because there's profit to be had in discovering them. If you start limiting the profit, you'll stifle the advancement. It's sad, but it's true. The first thing that starts to get cut when a pharma company is squeezed on earnings is R&D.

-People view generics as these great "saviors" that come in and provide affordable medicine. Generics allow the consumer to buy cheaper medicine by not contributing at all to the development of new drugs (if anything, they hinder it). It's the classic example of people wanting what's best unless they have to pay for it.

I'm 100% positive there are counters to most of these...I'm sure folks have/will cover them. I just wanted to point out that it's not so cut and dry. This particular article seems a bit excessive, but ask yourself this: What if that drug wasn't profitable at the old price. What if the company HAD to charge the new price to break even. Would you rather them stop selling it altogether, leaving no viable source for the drug, or sell it at the higher price?
Click to expand...
I have no experience so not challenging you on much of this, but are you relying solely on layoffs as proof of economic hard times? I know in my industry layoffs are a standard move to get a slight bump in the stock price, and often come hand in hand with double-digit YoY growth and record earnings.
Click to expand...
No...I just didn't feel like typing out all the reasons and figured that was a relatable one. Completely see your point, but many pharma companies are way beyond "normal rightsizing layoffs." I can tell you that Big Pharma is not in the midst of a profit boom, or record earnings. Many of them are really struggling to deal with patent expirations, and the end of the "blockbuster" drug. Most of the big statins are now off-patent. The small-molecule pipeline is dry. The biological pipeline is expensive and tough.

I could go on...but I'll stand behind the statement that Big Pharma companies as a whole are not making money hand-over-fist on their pharma products.
Click to expand...
Really? Pfizer made 22 billion in profit in 2013. Novartis made nearly 10 billion. IIRC Pfizers 42% profit margin was one of the, if not the, highest of any company. And Big Pharma is more profitable than Big Oil, carmakers, and media companies. I have a little trouble buying the whole we're going broke meme.
Click to expand...
Be careful quoting direct financials without understanding the variances year-over-year and understanding the drivers. I'm guessing you got this info from the Forbes article. That article is a little short-sighted as it doesn't consider income from continuing operations and includes one-time non-recurring events. i.e. if a company would've sold a huge chunk of it's business, it'd be listed there, which isn't really fair as that's not sustainable. 2013 was a very a-typical year for Pfizer.

They made $9B in 2014. 2012 and 2013 are artificially high due to the divestiture of their Nutritionals business in 2012, and in 2013 the spun off (and profited from) Zoetis, their former AH division (who I work for). Look at the income due to discontinued operations line for the impact. Looking at just 2012 or 2013 in isolation without considering these isn't really a fair comparison as they are non-recurring. And the 42% Profit Margin is again off of the 2013 base, which had ~$11B in favorability from the Zoetis spin. Take that out and we're at 22% for 2013...for comparison, 2014 is 18%, which is right on the average for the sector.

I get that their net profit margin is higher than Oil, Car Makers (who isn't higher than car makers!), and a lot of other sectors...but their risk profile is much riskier too...Part of my point is that, Apple, for example, makes even more, and nobody is protesting about how much they make and charge for their products.

I'm not disputing what you're saying as a general concept. Pharma is profitable. But the profits are also what is driving a lot of the innovation. Take away the profit by squeezing the revenue, and you'll kill innovation. It's not a failing business model at the moment, as evident by all the drug companies, but the profit margins seen in Pharma are hardly unique to an innovation-driven company.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
mquinnjr said:
Amused to Death said:
johnnyrock62000 said:
LOVE THIS!

San Diego Company Slaps Pharma Bro Down by Offering Same Cancer Drug for $1 a Pill
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...
Free market capitalism at work, and I'm glad to see it. It was a matter of time, as Daraprim lost patent exclusivity in the 70's. I hope Imprimis delivers well here once the FDA approves their generic version of this compound.
Click to expand...
Thats not free market capitalism at work... that's social justice at work.

Someone was so ####### tired of broken capitalism they decided to say "#### capitalism" and basically give away a product to those people in need.
Click to expand...
Markets correcting themselves via price competition is how the free market works. You can call it social justice, too. Whatever works.

 
mquinnjr said:
BigSteelThrill said:
mquinnjr said:
Amused to Death said:
johnnyrock62000 said:
LOVE THIS!

San Diego Company Slaps Pharma Bro Down by Offering Same Cancer Drug for $1 a Pill
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...
Free market capitalism at work, and I'm glad to see it. It was a matter of time, as Daraprim lost patent exclusivity in the 70's. I hope Imprimis delivers well here once the FDA approves their generic version of this compound.
Click to expand...
Thats not free market capitalism at work... that's social justice at work.

Someone was so ####### tired of broken capitalism they decided to say "#### capitalism" and basically give away a product to those people in need.
Click to expand...
Markets correcting themselves via price competition is how the free market works. You can call it social justice, too. Whatever works.
Click to expand...
They probably would have asked for more than $1 if it was truly about the free market instead of sticking it to the jerky CEO.

 
We're talking about an industry in which firms have to receive approval from the government to produce or sell a product, firms are given monopoly power by the government, and consumers are frequently forbidden to buy from foreign producers by the government. Why do we keep using the term "free market" to describe this situation?

There are good policy arguments to be made for and against various aspects of FDA oversight, patent protection, and prohibitions on drug importation. But at least let's recognize that they are all massive distortions driven by government policy, not the market itself.

 
this firm's (the one with the cheap price) approach is what they call compounding. Basically, that means they produce the drug in small batches for individual or small orders. According to article i read, that doesn't require the same FDA approval process. That's how they are able to get this to market so quickly.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
mquinnjr said:
Amused to Death said:
johnnyrock62000 said:
LOVE THIS!

San Diego Company Slaps Pharma Bro Down by Offering Same Cancer Drug for $1 a Pill
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...
Free market capitalism at work, and I'm glad to see it. It was a matter of time, as Daraprim lost patent exclusivity in the 70's. I hope Imprimis delivers well here once the FDA approves their generic version of this compound.
Click to expand...
Thats not free market capitalism at work... that's social justice at work.

Someone was so ####### tired of broken capitalism they decided to say "#### capitalism" and basically give away a product to those people in need.
Click to expand...
You are using terms like "free market" like you know what they mean when clearly you don't.

 
Clifford said:
Obamacare passed in 2010 and all we heard was that small business were going to have to shut down / fire all their workers because of the onerous requirements.

http://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs-data-nfib-201509.png

Once people got past the doomsday predictions hiring was positive again.
Click to expand...
....or just stop offering plans. Enrollment in fully insured group health insurance dropped by 6.6 million people in 2014. "Fully insured group health" is typically the smaller employers as larger employers typically have "self insured" plans (which don't have those "onerous requirements" you mentioned).

As for other small businesses between 50-100 employees, the ACA hasn't even affected them yet and due to another change to the ACA less than two weeks ago, won't affect them for at least another year.

But about this specific drug, that's BS what the company did.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
matttyl said:
But about this specific drug, that's BS what the company did.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the punch line? A competitor will offer a close substitute at $1/pill.

So all the outrage and calls for (more) regulation were a waste of time. Markets work, when we let them.
Click to expand...
No, I got that. I was talking about what the first company did. It's great that a competitor moved in and did what they did and will get all the great press for doing so.

I just wanted to add something to what Clifford said.

 
huthut said:
mquinnjr said:
BigSteelThrill said:
mquinnjr said:
Amused to Death said:
johnnyrock62000 said:
LOVE THIS!

San Diego Company Slaps Pharma Bro Down by Offering Same Cancer Drug for $1 a Pill
Click to expand...
Link
Click to expand...
Free market capitalism at work, and I'm glad to see it. It was a matter of time, as Daraprim lost patent exclusivity in the 70's. I hope Imprimis delivers well here once the FDA approves their generic version of this compound.
Click to expand...
Thats not free market capitalism at work... that's social justice at work.

Someone was so ####### tired of broken capitalism they decided to say "#### capitalism" and basically give away a product to those people in need.
Click to expand...
Markets correcting themselves via price competition is how the free market works. You can call it social justice, too. Whatever works.
Click to expand...
They probably would have asked for more than $1 if it was truly about the free market instead of sticking it to the jerky CEO.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but they're also doing this for all the free publicity they are getting out of it. This isn't some small company we're taking about, they are on NASDAQ. Also, in order to actually get this drug for the $1 a pill price, you have to go to their website.

 
renesauz said:
johnnycakes said:
It's a 62 year-old drug that was being sold so cheaply there was no competition, presumably. So one producer upped the price in a big way. Since it's no longer a patented med, someone else will quickly pick up the slack and produce more priced less than $750. Eventually the market price will stabilize as supply meets demand.
Click to expand...
Supply/demand considerations are just plain assinine in regards to medicine. There's only one company suppying electricity to your home...the laws of supply and demand suggest the electric company can and should charge far far more to deliver power than the do.

It's ridiculous to allow medicine to operate under (not-so) free market principles, because it is NOT a free market. It's not a luxury item, but a necessity. They shouldn't be morally allowed to charge whatever they want to just because they can.
Click to expand...
The ACA enshrined that into law. (i.e. Democrats have become the party that has passed the most protective, expensive law as regards to pharma ever). So, you know, look inward on this one.


Clifford said:
Rove! said:
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton to the rescue! Calling this price gouging, she is proposing a $250 cap on monthly payments for chronic users of these types of medicines.

Go Hillary!
Click to expand...
This sounds like a simpleton answer to a complex problemsThe cure is worse than the problem

You're going to kill r&ad

Any drug which is relatively expensive to manufacture is going have a hard time finding a home

Drugs that are cheap to make would still be subject to gouging

We have a ####load of dumb candidates.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the same slippery slope argument made any time there was ever a government mandated cost increase or regulation of any industry? Haven't we seen that despite what many called massive regulation increases the financial industry continues to make money hand over fist?

Obamacare passed in 2010 and all we heard was that small business were going to have to shut down / fire all their workers because of the onerous requirements.

http://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs-data-nfib-201509.png

Once people got past the doomsday predictions hiring was positive again.

You're not going to kill R&D because #1, there will still be researchers who actually give a #### about healing people and curing disease and #2 because there will still be people who want to market their drugs and make money.

Maybe some people who were used to the game being completely rigged in their favor will retire, but there will always be #1 and #2 unless we completely remove it from the private sector.
Click to expand...
I currently work at a not-for-profit that develops pharma (chemo drugs; we have developed about 1/3 of all chemotherapy in the market). While #1 is true and we have great people here that have a passion for doing this stuff, without the IP and other monies flowing from sales we'd have sunk long, long ago. It is a very high cost, highly regulated area to work in. You remove the profit angle and even places like I work at collapse.

 
Sand said:
The ACA enshrined that into law. (i.e. Democrats have become the party that has passed the most protective, expensive law as regards to pharma ever). So, you know, look inward on that one.
Click to expand...
This keeps getting repeated here but it's just not true. It was the Medicare Modernization Act of 2005 under GWB (created Medicare Part D) that barred government interference in drug pricing. ACA actually required drug manufacturers to pay $5 billion in rebates annually to cover patients in the Part D donut hole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AnonymousBob said:
Sammy3469 said:
Karma's a #####....

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-securities-fraud/
Click to expand...
He recently spent millions on the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album that music fans would love to hear and then told Bloomberg Businessweek that he had no immediate plans to listen to it.
Click to expand...
Between this and responding to Hillary with 'lol', I'll admit he has a supervillain esque flair to his antics.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the provision in the agreement that allows the Wu-Tang Clan to reclaim the album if they are able to obtain it during a "heist or caper" that maybe undertaken only by members of the group and/or Bill Murray?

Hopefully this arrest creates the opportunity for such a heist.

 
TobiasFunke said:
AnonymousBob said:
Sammy3469 said:
Karma's a #####....

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-securities-fraud/
Click to expand...
He recently spent millions on the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album that music fans would love to hear and then told Bloomberg Businessweek that he had no immediate plans to listen to it.
Click to expand...
Between this and responding to Hillary with 'lol', I'll admit he has a supervillain esque flair to his antics.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the provision in the agreement that allows the Wu-Tang Clan to reclaim the album if they are able to obtain it during a "heist or caper" that maybe undertaken only by members of the group and/or Bill Murray?

Hopefully this arrest creates the opportunity for such a heist.
Click to expand...
That is glorious.

 
AnonymousBob said:
TobiasFunke said:
AnonymousBob said:
Sammy3469 said:
Karma's a #####....

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-securities-fraud/
Click to expand...
He recently spent millions on the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album that music fans would love to hear and then told Bloomberg Businessweek that he had no immediate plans to listen to it.
Click to expand...
Between this and responding to Hillary with 'lol', I'll admit he has a supervillain esque flair to his antics.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the provision in the agreement that allows the Wu-Tang Clan to reclaim the album if they are able to obtain it during a "heist or caper" that maybe undertaken only by members of the group and/or Bill Murray?

Hopefully this arrest creates the opportunity for such a heist.
Click to expand...
That is glorious.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to imagine them NOT making a movie about this. Even if they don't actually try the heist. It's just too perfect. A pre-casted black Oceans 11, with Murray in the Elliott Gould role.

 
Our very own pantagrapher getting some CNN Money love for his tweet?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/17/investing/martin-shkreli-twitter-reaction-indictment-arrest/index.html

So it shouldn't be a big surprise that many on Twitter were giddy about Shkreli's indictment.Several joked about whether he would apply his pricing tactics in prison ... or if fellow inmates might turn those practices against him.



pantagrapher ‏@pantagrapher Can't wait for Martin Shkreli to try to hike the price of prison cigarettes 7000%.
Click to expand...
 
It is of note that the charges are based on his work with Retrophin, another shady company Mr. Shkreli headed but proves again that if they want to get you, they will. I'm sure this was a witch-hunt but frankly I don't care and nobody else will either and it will remind these criminal masterminds that they aren't the only one playing loose with the rules..


but what this really reminds us of is that you can't ever trust some dude who's got a string of 16 consonants in his name, there is just no book to how the hell you go and pronounce Shkreli. Is it Sch-Kre-Li or is it Suh-Kre-li, or is is Scr-Jack-Off..

either way.. glad to hear that this guy could spend a number of years behind bars swallowing his tongue
 
coyote5 said:
humpback said:
Anyone catch that circus on capital hill? This guy and his lawyer are real pieces of work....
Click to expand...
TL;DNR for me?
Click to expand...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/martin-shkreli-testifies-before-congress.html

Shkreli smirked, twiddled a pencil and looked away as Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said "I want to plead with you to use any remaining influence you have with your former company," Turing Pharmaceuticals, "to lower the price" of Daraprim.
Click to expand...
Shkreli's criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Brafman told reporters that "Mr. Shkreli did not intend to show any disrespect." Brafman said his client's fidgeting and facial mugging "was nervous energy."

Brafman, who called the hearing "a hostile forum," also said that Shkreli is "a brilliant scientist" dedicated to saving lives.

"Mr. Shkreli is not a villain, he's not a bad boy, at the end of the story, he's a hero," said Brafman, whose client was only allowed by a federal judge to travel outside of New York for the purpose of attending the congressional hearing.

But after the hearing, Shkreli tweeted: "Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government." He then kept up a steady pace of retweeting messages supporting him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't think anyone's face could be more punchable when this story originally broke. He has really outdone himself

 
The guy who permanently decommissions this punk will be celebrated like Seal Team 6 taking out Osama.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminalxylem
Patient Satisfaction
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
Ron Swanson
Online Will?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
TheBaylorKid
TheBaylorKid
Max Power
What's the play here?
Replies
47
Views
1K
The Longtime Lurker
The Longtime Lurker

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top