[Clubber]

Yes, but you are getting distracted by exactly what you were supposed to get distracted by. He was hated because he hiked drug prices (and he was a dick). The news jumped all over this story and he was a perfect scapegoat.

Sadly, It's still perfectly legal to corner a drug and hike the prices. That was the bigger crime, and it continues to go on, costing taxpayers and patients millions if not billions of dollars, and sometimes costing their health.

Yes, hiking drug prices isn't what you should be looking at. Look at Shkrelli! He's in jail; problem solved. Politicians are now off the hook with this conviction. No problem here, justice served. /s

[king_magic]

I initially did not agree with you, then re-read your posts several time, and have come to the conclusion you are absolutely right. Cornering a drug and hiking the price simply for profit and no other legitimate reason (supply chain issue, newer/more effective version, etc...) should be illegal. It is a crime, maybe not in the letter of the law, but ethically, it's a crime.

[Clubber]

They're also leveraging the very thing that was intended to keep pharmaceuticals a legitimate industry; the FDA. The drug he (and many companies) target are drugs where the patent has expired but there is no FDA approved generic. I believe FDA approval can take up to 5 years, so that's 5 years it takes for the market to react. Of course in a free market, this would never happen because 10 other companies would start making the drug, but the FDA safeguards are being leveraged against fair competition.

Not only are these companies jacking up prices with monopolistic practices, but they are eroding the legitimacy of the FDA (also to their benefit).

[brucephillips]

> Cornering a drug and hiking the price simply for profit and no other legitimate reason (supply chain issue, newer/more effective version, etc...) should be illegal.

This is how all patents work. Are you against patents?

[nate_meurer]

Daraprim is not patented.

[mannykannot]

In this dialog, only one party has constructed a narrative that involves drug prices, and it is not 9889095r3jh.

[Clubber]

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to insinuate.

[s73v3r_]

You're claiming that the person who responded to you was distracted by something, but their response didn't indicate that at all.

[Clubber]

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack against him, it was more of an observation that the citizenry are now quelled from being (rightfully) pissed about companies cornering a drug and hiking up prices.

Shkrelli is a scapegoat in reagards to the drug price hiking. It's still going on; it's still perfectly legal; and it seems the politicians are getting paid to keep it that way.

It's more of a thought of how the citizenry can get manipulated. Shkrelli was the face of this practice; Shkrelli is in jail; justice served. Or so the narrative seems to be.

[twblalock]

Don’t assume that people who disagree with you are distracted or deluded.

[Clubber]

He was arguing the wrong topic; whether or not Shkrelli got a just sentence. That's what we are supposed to be talking about; not the fact that it's legal to monopolize a drug then pursue monopolistic pricing practices on said drug. That's what Shkrelli was infamous for, not fraud.

I may or may not agree with the justness of the sentence, but that wasn't the thrust of my argument, therefore the distraction.

[elefanten]

No, you're arguing the wrong topic. The linked article is about the outcome of the trial that occurred. Your 5-point "here's what happened" muddled the relationship between this sentencing and other reasons Shkreli is a public figure.

And thus the "here's what happened" attitude is exactly false; what happened was a petulant fraudster got a middle-of-the-road sentence for exactly the crime he was on trial for.

[Clubber]

You're discussing the latest chapter, I'm discussing the whole book.

I'm including all the "Pharmabro" chapters over the last couple of years. Google his name. He isn't famous for fraud.

[singhrac]

We understand, you're trying to draw attention to drug price hiking still occurring, and you think that this conviction will blow the whole thing under the rug. I agree with you on the first statement, but I think we disagree that the second was intentional.

The original replier (9889095r3jh) had an issue with (3), which is not really an accurate summarization (I don't think the prosecutors acted because he was hated; using the word misstate makes it seem like a mistake rather than outright lying; and it's totally irrelevant whether he tripled their money).

I agree we should change the regulation structure to prevent drug price hiking: any suggestions on how to do it? I for one would love to donate money to this cause if it's actionable.

Also, I'm sorry you're getting a lot of flak for that comment. It's mostly nitpicking, so safe to ignore once you see the point the nitpickers are making (including me).

[Clubber]

I see. Yes, misstated was probably the wrong word. Here is what he got convicted of fraud for:

...the fund was managing $35 million in assets and had an independent auditor.

He said he later learned both of those claims were false

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-shkreli/investo...

That is a lie and therefore fraud, but the 7 year sentence seems out of line with the actual fraud committed (there are degrees).

Shkreli lied to him repeatedly, although he eventually made millions of dollars from the investment.

He made the defrauded investors money. In this crazy country, I'm not sure that giving someone shares in another company to cover other losses is illegal (Retrophin Inc). It seems like a Ponzi, but who knows. Fund managers are given a hell of a lot of leeway.

So to summarize, 7 years seem harsh for lying about the size of the assets and an independent auditor, given the fact that the investors made money. To me this seems more in line that he was punished for the press he got, and embarrassing Congress when they called him in for his perfectly legal monopolistic practices. I would much rather him be convicted for that.

[davrosthedalek]

He isn't convicted for being famous. He is convicted for fraud. The sentence takes into account his behavior with regard to his fraud case. He didn't show remorse, and it was likely that he would do it again. Hence a harsher sentence than he expected.