Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the scientists-in-the-making dept.

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".


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @02:39AM

    by edIII (791) on Friday December 02 2016, @02:39AM (#435777)

    It was literally an anecdote about a bad joke.

    No, it literally was not. That was Trump complaining about who was touching his money, and then he confirmed the statements when asked. At best, we can't tell between trolling and racism. Combine that with the lawsuits against him in NY for discrimination specifically against black people, and that is hard to accept as a "joke".

    Those are his statements sir, and there are lists with hundreds that have been circulated. Quotes, I think is the term right? As in, he fucking said them. Since he loves to sue the fuck out of people, and is a gazillionaire, why doesn't he attack those lists? BECAUSE HE CAN'T WIN, BECAUSE HE SAID IT.

    It's quite astonishing that you just put out two more sizable paragraphs of this rhetoric but you still haven't cited a single sentence!

    Still not going to. I gave you the date, time, and place. If your such a stubborn mother fucker, or just plain ignorant, that you don't know the opening lines to your candidates campaign, that reverberated around the world (especially Mexico and their media--habla Espanol?), I'm going to let you reel out that rope to yourself for as long as you want buddy. It only makes you look like a true asshole, because it's a well known fact worldwide.

    You can have your citations in multiple languages, news outlets, and countries. Take your pick. All attributed as a direct quote, from the very man himself, starting his Presidential campaign.

    It's like you would demand a citation that J.F.K was shot :) Keep it up, that part is entertaining as hell.

    Oh I do not agree. I think that the hypothesis that 29 out of every 100 voters in this country who identify as Latino/a voted for a man who is openly racist against them and regularly vomits offensive filth towards them is a rather extraordinary one, actually. It begs for proofs.

    I thought you were smarter than that. You do understand that one action has nothing to do with the other? I can say "niggers should hang", get elected as Mayor, and it does not mean that I wasn't racist with my words. How do any subsequent actions remove the character that can be attributed to the words?

    My statement again, "Whether or not somebody voted for him, has absolutely zero bearing on whether his statements were, or were not, racist."

    So by you not agreeing, this means that if somebody did vote for him it has bearing on whether HIS statements were racist? Think about that again, and this supports my point that you have issues with reality when it comes to politics.

    You know nothing about me, and I have no idea what you mean.

    Your ranting has degenerated to the point I don't think you even know what you're saying.

    I know exactly what I'm saying. You have problems because you can't reconcile your positions against racism and bigotry with the stark and unpleasant fact that the bastion of your political beliefs has been taking over by people that have, and demonstrate, racist and/or bigoted views.

    You asked how somebody could still vote for him, even though he has said racist and hurtful things about them. That answer is political affiliation, and a mixture of fear and hate of the other side.

    Additionally, if you want a further explanation, both major choices were complete shit on their own. The Democratic Party platform was just less scary, and for the record, it won the popular vote. Depending on recounts, it may have one the EC. So don't act like the election is over, or not even controversial, or providing a mandate for jack shit.

    What the election said loudly was that we were all pissed off and very afraid.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2