SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The ABC news website (an Australian national news service funded by the Australian government) reports on a group of high school students from Sydney Australia who have managed to recreate the active ingredient in Daraprim for a mere $20.
Daraprim has received a lot of coverage recently after Turing Pharmaceuticals who owns the patent, initially raised the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750.00, though they have since stated that the price will be reduced.
From the article:
For $US20, a group of high school students has created 3.7 grams of an active ingredient used in the medicine Daraprim, which would sell in the United States for between $US35,000 and $US110,000.
Pyrimethamine, the active ingredient in Daraprim, treats a parasitic infection in people with weak immune systems such as pregnant women and HIV patients.
In August 2015, the price of Daraprim in the US rose from $US13.50 per tablet to $US750 when Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its controversial then-chief executive Martin Shkreli, acquired the drug's exclusive rights and hiked up the price.
Since then, the 17-year-olds from Sydney Grammar have worked in their school laboratory to create the drug cheaply in order to draw attention to its inflated price overseas, which student Milan Leonard said was "ridiculous".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:16PM
He's taking a step back from the specific situation and making an accurate statement based on the larger pharmaceutrical industry as a whole.
Notice that stating "R&D is expensive" is not equivalent to stating, "Companies can overcharge for medicine." Taking facts at their face value and not adding or subtracting from it because of our own biases (however "correct" they are) is an important skill to have online.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:29PM
Its important to highlight the difference when defending an opposing point of view. We are in the age of cynicism where people are forced to presume ulterior motives behind everything.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:49PM
The R&D and testing to bring a drug to market are expensive and risky. The company gets a patent and a worldwide monopoly on production and distribution to recoup those costs rapidly. After that, the drug is supposed to become unencumbered and participate in healthy, free market economy.
Daraprim, for example, was patented in 1933 and has been available for generic manufacture since 1953. This is why you could get it in the US for $13, in Canada for $1, and in most of the rest of the world for less than that. It's profit margin is so low there's only one FDA-approved US manufacturer. When Shkreli bought it, he realized that this pill is life-and-death for some people and decided to raise the price to reflect the value of the life saved (rather than the cost of production). This is what capitalists do: they charge what the market will bear.
In a healthy market, a competitor would jump in, ramp up production and undercut Shkreli by 10% (satisfying himself with a mere 80,000% profit margin), and so on, until the price returned to something close to the cost of production. Due to FDA, any company that wishes to produce a competing implementation must first demonstrate that it is functionally equivalent to the available product. If Shkreli refuses to sell Daraprim to potential competitors, they can not make that demonstration. Nor do they have any reason to believe that, having invested the capital to test and produce their own Daraprim, Shkreli would not immediately return to the $13 pricing, eliminating any chance for the new player to profit. (This part is very much the same reason incumbent ISPs don't have any real competition).
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:56PM
He's taking a step back from the specific situation and making an accurate statement based on the larger pharmaceutrical industry as a whole.
While I can't conclusively say what another poster had going inside his/her head, the post you're referencing was deliberately entitled "The students are barking up the wrong tree" (as is your reply, I might note), and references discussing these specific students in the post too, seemingly in support of the "larger" point. So yes, while such an argument COULD be applied to the "larger pharmaceutical industry as a whole," in this specific case, I think you might excuse someone for assuming the post was referencing the present situation -- since it's actually in the title of the thread.
And why jump to defense here anyway? It's a reasonable assumption that many drugs are priced high by companies that have high R&D costs, so it's not like it's a huge criticism that the parent of this thread didn't know that it wouldn't apply here. Instead, why not just accept the additional information from someone who is replying?
Taking facts at their face value and not adding or subtracting from it because of our own biases (however "correct" they are) is an important skill to have online.
LOL. Are you serious?! I'd agree with you that this is a useful skill to have in rational discourse, but the vast majority of "online" discourse proceeds irrationally by people who often pontificate from a state of ignorance. I'd hope that we aspire to better here, but if you're looking for "important skills to have online" to win an argument, I think posting early, definitively, and pushing the edge of trolling (without actually going over the top -- just enough bluster to emphasize your "superior" position) is probably the best strategy to get the most upvotes in most forums. Actual knowledge or nuanced argumentation only comes into the game if you're unlucky enough to have another person challenge you quickly AND that challenge is more in line with the groupthink of the forum in question.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:21AM
"the post you're referencing was deliberately entitled "The students are barking up the wrong tree""
Yes, and that is absolutely the argument he was making.
"I think you might excuse someone for assuming the post was referencing the present situation -- since it's actually in the title of the thread."
So now you're conflating his statement that the kids are juvenile in their thinking, with the imaginary argument — that nobody made — which is that the kids were not protesting this drug specifically, but rather all of the pharmaceutical industry.
The kids were protesting this drug specifically which demonstrates their ignorance of pharmaceuticals as a whole, was his argument. Then the poster I replied to responded with sources and information regarding legislation that deals with gasoline scarity in the United States, making a direct comparison between fuel and medicine.
You suffer from a lack of reading comprehension, a mental disability, or you think that gasoline and medicine should be directly compared to each other in a reasonable discussion.
"LOL. Are you serious?!"
"I'd hope that we aspire to better here"
"posting early, definitively, and pushing the edge of trolling [...] just enough bluster to emphasize your "superior" position) is probably the best strategy to get the most upvotes in most forums. "
"Actual knowledge or nuanced argumentation only comes into the game"
Pot, kettle, black. The comment, "Please stay on topic" is condescending, perhaps "triggering" to thinkers of your caliber, maybe rude, and can be said in 100 different ways, but that makes it no less relevant in professional structured debate or online discussion.