Showing posts with label Pharma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharma. Show all posts

March 10, 2018

PharmaBro Martin Shkreli Wasn't Smiling Anymore But the Sobbing and Begging For Mercy Took Its Place

The guy with no heart that made sick people go without because he could.  He got sentenced to 7 years.

[Forbes] What a comedown. Two years ago, the smirking failed hedge fund manager and former pharma CEO Martin Shkreli laughed as he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when testifying before Congress. It was all a joke
Today, his smirk was gone. Shkreli cried — sobbed, in some accounts — as he begged for "your honor's mercy," pleading for leniency from a federal court judge.
Shkreli got seven years on Friday. Mercy he had failed to show others was withheld. "Pharma Bro" had committed an unforgivable theft.
The 34-year-old son of Albanian and Croatian immigrantshas had an interesting career. He was first investigated by the SEC in 2000, when he was 16, for suspiciously timely shorting of a stock. Shkreli was cleared.

In New York,  Martin Shkreli, the notorious former hedge fund manager, is scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. District Court on Friday for defrauding investors.

Prosecutors have asked U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto to sentence Shkreli to at least 15 years in prison. Shkreli’s defense team is asking for much less, 12 to 18 months.

Shkreli’s case has attracted international media attention for his outsized personality. An hour before his sentencing hearing, more than half a dozen television cameras were stationed outside the courthouse. Inside, his father, who sat in the front row of the courtroom every day during his five-week trial, paced in a hallway. 

Shkreli, 34, best known for raising the price of an AIDS drug by 5,000 percent when he was chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, was convicted by a Brooklyn jury in August of defrauding the investors in his hedge funds. Shkreli lied to obtain investors’ money, they didn’t tell them when he made a bad stock bet that led to massive losses, prosecutors argued. Instead, they said, he raised more money to pay off other investors or took money and stock from Retrophin, a drug company that he was running. 

Shkreli’s defense attorneys have argued that his investors eventually made money and said the jury erred by convicting Shkreli on some of the counts he faced. Matsumoto rejected those motions.

“The big risk that Shkreli faces here is that he has kind of dug his own grave four times already with this court by showing this complete disdain and thumbing of his nose to the judicial process and the court and law enforcement,” said David Chase, a former prosecutor for the Securities and Exchange Commission. “You couple that with the judge’s very powerful discretion, and it just [isn’t] going to end well.” 

Shkreli responds to conviction
Martin Shkreli, a former pharmaceutical CEO, spoke to reporters after he was convicted of three counts of securities fraud on Aug. 4. (Reuters)
Usually boisterous and defiant, Shkreli has recently struck a contrite tone. “I accept the fact that I made serious mistakes, but I still believe that I am a good person with much potential,” he said in a three-page letter to the judge overseeing his case.

But it may be too late. Prosecutors dismiss Shkreli’s contrition as insincere and say that his ability to repay investors is further evidence of his crime, not his innocence. “Not once does Shkreli acknowledge that he lied to investors and committed fraud,” prosecutors said. Shkreli’s investors were not “repaid due to Shkreli’s personal generosity or honest hard work, but were ultimately remunerated due to Shkreli’s continuing crimes.”

In the two years since FBI agents ushered him from his Manhattan apartment, Shkreli has gone from a rising star in the hedge fund world to Wall Street bad boy. He has smirked his way through interviews and congressional appearances and beefed with rappers, reporters and almost anyone else in his path. He was repeatedly kicked off Twitter. There was a satirical musical about him, “Pharma Bro: An American Douchical!” (it received good reviews) and an episode of CNBC’s “American Greed” dedicated to his troubles.

His antics even continued during his five-week trial. Once, he walked into a room full of reporters and mocked the Brooklyn prosecutors on his case as the “junior varsity” to the federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Matsumoto told him to stop talking. Later, after the trial, Matsumoto revoked Shkreli’s $5 million bail after he offered his Facebook followers money to pull a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair.

Washington Post

It is adamfoxie's 10th🦊Anniversay. 10 years witnessing the world and bringing you a pieace whcih is ussually not getting its due coverage.

September 14, 2017

The Stupidity of Pharma Bro Puts Him in Jail for Offering Reward for HairWFollicle of HClinton

Martin Shkreli, the former pharmaceutical executive who is awaiting sentencing for a fraud conviction, was sent to jail on Wednesday after a federal judge revoked his bail because he had offered $5,000 for a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair.

Mr. Shkreli, who was free on $5 million bail while he awaited sentencing, had made two Facebook posts offering cash to anyone who could “grab a hair” from Mrs. Clinton during her book tour.

At the hearing in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto said that Mr. Shkreli’s post could be perceived as a true threat.

“That is a solicitation to assault in exchange for money that is not protected by the First Amendment,” she said.

Mr. Shkreli, 34, gained notoriety as a pharmaceutical executive for increasing the price of a lifesaving drug, Daraprim, by 5,000 percent. He was convicted in August of three counts of fraud, relating to two hedge funds and a pharmaceutical company he previously ran. On Wednesday, he was scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 16, but he most likely will not be released before then unless his lawyers can show that he poses no threat to the community.

Although Mr. Shkreli edited the post to say that he had meant it to be satirical, and he later took it down altogether, prosecutors contended that there was a risk that one of Mr. Shkreli’s social media followers would take the post seriously and act on it.

It was, they noted, not the first time that Mr. Shkreli had made inflammatory posts on social media.

Just before his conviction, prosecutors wrote, Mr. Shkreli had made a sexual threat toward a female journalist on Twitter; since then, they wrote, “Shkreli has engaged in an escalating pattern of threats and harassment.”

Mr. Shkreli’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, argued at the hearing that Mr. Shkreli was not violent and that the post had been “a momentary lapse in judgment.”

Mr. Shkreli, he said, deserved another chance.

“Stupid doesn’t make you violent,” Mr. Brafman said, adding that his client’s Facebook posts had shown “immaturity, satire, a warped sense of humor.”

                                                            Image result for hair with follicle

But Judge Matsumoto was unmoved.

“What is funny about that?” she responded. “He doesn’t know who his followers are.”

Judge Matsumoto said that while Mr. Shkreli had edited the original post to say, “this is satire, meant for humor,” the next day he put up another post that echoed the first: “$5,000 but the hair has to include a follicle. Do not assault anyone for any reason ever (LOLIBERALS).” 

Mr. Shkreli, dressed in a lavender button-down shirt, was animated for much of the hearing, as he had been throughout his trial. But his behavior changed when Judge Matsumoto said that she had decided to jail him, and he sat quietly at the defense table for the rest of the hearing.

After the hearing, two deputy United States marshals led Mr. Shkreli to a holding cell adjoining the courtroom. He will be held at a federal jail in Brooklyn.

September 8, 2017

Pharma Bro Still Wants Hillary Locked Up But Prosecutors Want to Lock Him Up For Threatening Her

 Pharma Bro brought  HIV saving pills. from $13.50 to $7.50 a Pill

Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to revoke "Pharma bro" Martin Shkreli's bail and throw him in jail for a threatening Facebook post about Hillary Clinton, according to a court motion filed in New York on Thursday.

In their motion, federal prosecutors are asking a judge to revoke the former pharmaceutical executive's $5-million bond in order to take him into custody over what they say is dangerous public conduct.

Last month, Shkreli was convicted on several counts of securities fraud for lying to investors of his failed hedge fund, and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He faces up to 20 years in prison and said he plans to challenge the conviction.

Before being found guilty of securities fraud, the "pharma bro" garnered international attention and condemnation for his decision to drastically raise the price of a life-saving drug, used by HIV patients, from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

Shkreli, who has a brash social media presence and was suspended from Twitter for harassing a Teen Vogue writer, told his nearly 100,000 Facebook followers to
"grab hair from" Clinton while she was on her book tour.

"Will pay $5,000 per hair obtained from Hillary Clinton after the sequence matches. Good luck, patrollers," he wrote on Facebook. The post has since been removed.

Shkreli has routinely and emphatically voiced his support for President Trump, who once called him a spoiled brat.

Citing this and other social media postings, prosecutors argued that Shkreli's "recent public conduct demonstrates that he cannot meet his post-trial burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does not pose a danger to the community."

They also point out that his offer to pay someone thousands of dollars for the former presidential candidate's hair has "required a significant expenditure of resources by the United States Secret Service, which is charged with protecting Secretary Clinton."

When Clinton fell ill due to heat exhaustion and pneumonia at last year's Sept. 11 memorial, Shkreli also went to Chelsea Clinton's apartment, where the former secretary of state was recuperating, and live-streamed for nearly two hours while heckling her, prosecutors said.

Earlier Thursday, Shkreli called his trolling of and threats to Clinton a prank, writing, "Lol Hillary Clinton's presumptive agents are hard at work. It was just a prank, bro! But still, lock her up. Spend your resources investigating her, not me!!," he added.

BuzzFeed News

August 19, 2017

Juror on Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli, "He is a Dick"

“I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him.”

Self-care can take many forms, and it doesn’t have to involve funneling money toward your bath bomb collection. For instance, today, you can reclaim your time with a quick skim through a random sampling of Americans’ opinions on one Martin Shkreli. 

Harper’s has published selections from the June transcript of voir dire in the fraud trial of the famously besmirked pharma bro, wherein prospective jurors were forced to reveal to a judge any biases that might prevent them from making a fair decision in Shkreli’s case. More than 200 people were dismissed from the pile of possible jury members because, it seems, Shkreli’s reputation as a smug jerkoff who price-gouges HIV and cancer patients preceded him. Their in-court explanations are positively healing to read.

“The only thing I’d be impartial about is what prison this guy goes to,” one juror declared. Said another: “I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there—” “Sir, thank you,” the judge interrupted, presumably to protect the potential juror from drawing charges of his own for threatening the defendant.

These hero almost-jurors prove that effective shade need not be complicated nor particularly creative. Some of their simplest phrases are their best. “I have total disdain for the man”; “I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him”—if these people weren’t standing before a judge, they would 100 percent be blowing on the tips of their nails, flipping their hair, and flouncing away before their interlocutors could utter another word. Everything they said—“he’s a greedy little man”; “he’s the most hated man in America”—is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but reading the comments as a whole feels even better than truth-telling. It feels like watching that inauguration Nazi-punching GIF over and over again, but without people fighting all over your Facebook wall about whether or not it was okay.

The most honest juror self-disqualifications concern Shkreli’s face, which nine out of 10 faceologists* (*not a real medical specialty) agree is yearning to be knocked around. “I was looking yesterday in the newspaper and I saw the defendant,” one person said. “There was something about him. I can’t be fair. There was something that didn’t look right.” Yes, yes, that sounds right. Another juror explained that “when I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake—not knowing who he was—I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.” Perceptive!

Of course, none of these people made it onto Shkreli’s jury, because judges must strive to get a set of 12 people who know as little about the involved parties as possible, and who have no preconceived notions about their innocence or guilt. That’s great for the justice system, but sad for me, because I would very much like to hear more sharp observations from the mind of juror No. 144. “The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind. Can you do that?” the judge asked the prospective juror. “I don’t think I can,” the juror replied, “because he kind of looks like a dick.” That kind of well-reasoned argument belongs in every good jury deliberation, or at least in the miniseries adaptation.

 By Christina Cauterucci who is a Slate staff writer.

August 7, 2017

Should A Judge Tell You What Medication to Take with The Power to Make You?

Philip Kirby says he felt pressured into taking Vivitrol for his heroin addiction by his drug court treatment program. "Like I couldn't come into the program until I got it," he says.
Jake Harper/Side Effects Public Media
Philip Kirby says he first used heroin during a stint in a halfway house a few years ago, when he was 21 years old. He quickly formed a habit.
"You can't really dabble in it," he says.
Late last year, Kirby was driving with drugs and a syringe in his car when he got pulled over. He went to jail for a few months on a separate charge before entering a drug court program in Hamilton County, Ind., north of Indianapolis. But before Kirby started, he says the court pressured him to get a shot of a drug called Vivitrol.
Vivitrol is a monthly injection of naltrexone, which blocks opioid receptors in the brain. It's one of three medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating opioid addiction. While it's effective in some people, it's not for everyone. Patients have to be ready to be opioid-free, and some patients won't do well on it. It can also have side effects, which Kirby says he experienced.
"I had sinus problems, chest problems for the whole month I was on it," Kirby says. "I couldn't shake it."

He says he also got a rash — another possible reaction to Vivitrol, according to the product's warnings. Months after he had the shot, he still had white splotches on his arms, which he attributed to the drug. But even with those symptoms, Kirby says the court urged him to stick with the medication for a couple of more months. "They were way too pushy about it," he says.
More than 130,000 Americans will go through drug courts this year, according to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Drug courts are designed to allow some people whose crimes stem from addiction to get treatment instead of jail time. But the treatment that is offered varies from court to court and is entirely at the judge's discretion.
Some courts offer participants a full range of evidence-based treatment, including medication-assisted treatment. Others don't allow addiction medications at all. And some permit just one: Vivitrol.
Prime targets for marketing
One reason for this preference is that Alkermes, the drug's manufacturer, is doing something nearly unheard of for a pharmaceutical company: It is marketing directly to drug court judges and other officials.
The strategy capitalizes on a market primed to prefer their product. Judges, prosecutors and other criminal justice officials can be suspicious of the other FDA-approved addiction medications, buprenorphine and methadone, because they are themselves opioids. Alkermes promotes its product as "nonaddictive."
The argument worked for Judge Lewis Gregory, who heads the city court in Greenwood, Ind. About a year and a half ago, Gregory didn't allow participants to start on addiction medications while in the program. "We were failing miserably with the heroin population," he says.

Judge Lewis Gregory, head of the city court in Greenwood, Ind., began allowing drug court participants to begin taking Vivitrol after meeting with an Alkermes sales representative.
Jake Harper/Side Effects Public Media
At the time, Gregory was only familiar with buprenorphine and methadone. Both are opioid medications that can prevent withdrawals, reduce cravings and ultimately help people maintain a stable recovery. When they are properly prescribed and administered, patients don't get a euphoric feeling or a "high."
Buprenorphine and methadone have been the standard of care for opioid addiction for years, but because they're opioids, it is possible to misuse them. They're also sold illegally on the street.
"I was certainly not going to do a medication-assisted treatment program with drugs which people use to get high," Gregory says, adding that he would not order someone to stop buprenorphine treatment if it were legally prescribed by a physician, a situation he rarely sees.
Then he received some Vivitrol literature in the mail and a phone call from an Alkermes sales representative. "So we ended up meeting in the early part of 2016, and she began educating me a bit," he says.
Six months later, his court began a Vivitrol program, permitting some participants to use the drug. A sales representative sometimes sits in on the court's treatment team meetings, Gregory says.
Many treatment specialists say allowing judges and other criminal justice officials with no medical training to exert influence over medical decisions is problematic. The power makes them prime targets for Vivitrol marketing, they say.
"You would think it would be more appropriate to go after physicians," says Basia Andraka-Christou, who researches drug courts at the Fairbanks School of Public Health at Indiana University.
"What this is implying is that the judges in these cases are actually making a lot of the medical decisions, and that should be very concerning to everyone," she says.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, who researches pharmaceutical marketing at Georgetown University, says she has not heard of another drug company going after judges. She says it's not just unique — it's inappropriate and could ultimately be damaging to patients. "They're not health care providers. They don't know data. They don't know research," she says. 
A company strategy
The drug court Kirby went through doesn't allow medications other than Vivitrol for treating addiction. In fact, NPR and Side Effects Public Media have identified at least eight courts out of the several dozen in Indiana that say they only allow Vivitrol treatment.
NPR and Side Effects Public Media have learned that Alkermes sales reps have also marketed the drug to court officials in Missouri and Ohio. A report from ProPublica found that extensive marketing is leading judges to favor Vivitrol around the country.
The company is open about this part of its sales strategy. At an investor event last year, policy director Jeff Harris said drug courts are a huge market for Vivitrol.
"We're making progress but still just barely scratching the surface on the need that exists across the country," Harris said in a presentation. "There are over 3,000 counties in the United States, and there are over 3,000 drug courts." A shot of Vivitrol costs about $1,000, making it pricier than the other addiction treatments. In many cases, the drug is paid for through Medicaid or other public funds. And marketing to criminal justice settings seems to have paid off for the company, whose earnings have grown significantly since its introduction. Vivitrol sales reached $209 million in 2016 — up from just $30 million in 2011. Sales have continued to climb this year.
Alkermes goes beyond marketing to judges. It also lobbies state and national policymakers to write laws that favor Vivitrol — and in some cases, hamper access to other addiction medications. The company has said it supports the use of all medications for addiction, but in practice, it doesn't.
The company supported one law in Indiana that encourages the use of Vivitrol in drug courts. Signed in 2015, the bill allows judges to require medication as a condition of participating in a drug court, and the language specifically highlights Vivitrol treatment.
Alkermes declined repeated interview requests. In a written statement, the company defended the practice of marketing in criminal justice settings by noting that judges don't actually prescribe their product.
No one-size-fits-all solution
Drug court judges interviewed for this story say they don't mandate Vivitrol treatment, and that people can say no.
"We encourage it, but we never force anybody," says Judge Gail Bardach of the Hamilton County, Ind., drug court, where Philip Kirby was a participant.
But facing potential jail time and court officials who really believe in Vivitrol, participants say getting the shot doesn't always feel like a choice.
"They made it seem like they were forcing it upon me, like I couldn't come into the program until I got it," Kirby says.
For some patients, Vivitrol does help. Jeremy Templin went through the Hamilton County drug court program a few years ago after he was arrested for theft. He said the decision to go on Vivitrol seemed like it was made without him, but he credits his recovery, in large part, to the drug.
"I don't know what it would have been like without it, but I know that I did have it, and here I am today," he says. "I'm still alive."
But Vivitrol is far from a one-size-fits-all solution. It's not ideal for patients who are dealing with chronic pain on top of their addiction, or for pregnant women. It's expensive. Furthermore, relapse rates for all kinds of opioid addiction treatment are high, and after a period of not using, tolerance for opioids is low. Treatment with Vivitrol, which contains no opioid ingredients, could make someone more likely to overdose if they relapse, addiction specialists warn.
Dan Mistak, an attorney with Community Oriented Correctional Health Services, says courts should allow all medication options and let doctors make treatment decisions — including whether someone should use medication in their recovery.
"We rely on outside experts all the time in the judicial system. We don't ask a judge to come in and be an expert in arson," for example, he says. "This is a responsibility that a judge doesn't want."
The federal government and the National Association of Drug Court Professionalsagree that courts should allow all three FDA-approved opioid addiction medication options.
"Especially with this exploding opioid use epidemic, we have to make available, as much as we can, whatever interventions are out there that are likely to be effective," says Terrence Walton, chief operating officer for the NADCP, which lists Alkermes as one of its biggest donors.
For some judges, limited access to buprenorphine and methadone shapes their decisions about what to allow in drug court programs. The medications are heavily regulated, and many communities lack providers who can prescribe and dispense the drugs. Judge Bardach says she would consider allowing participants to use methadone if there were a provider closer to the court.
A need for regulation?
Currently, there is no regulatory agency that can ensure that judges follow best practices.
"There are not that many ways to leverage accountability over these courts," says Christine Mehta, a researcher at Physicians for Human Rights. Mehta recently authored a report on drug courts, focusing on three states. "Really the key is attaching restrictions and requirements to funding," she says.
The federal government has put some requirements in place for courts receiving grants from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. They have to show that they "will not deny any eligible client access to the program because of their use of FDA-approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders." But only about 200 of the more than 3,000 drug courts nationwide operate with help from a BJA grant.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has similar grant-making guidelines in place, but it currently funds only 172 courts.
Mehta says states and counties need to implement similar requirements and work to educate drug court officials about all addiction medication options. She argues that until drug courts allow all of the medications, they're not fulfilling their promise.
"If drug courts say that they provide access to treatment instead of prison, they are inherently violating that by saying, 'Well, we only provide Vivitrol,' " she says.
Mehta says Alkermes' marketing would be less effective if judges were compelled to follow best practices.
Georgetown researcher Fugh-Berman thinks that pharmaceutical companies like Alkermes should be barred from marketing to court officials and lawmakers.
"It would be great if the [FDA] went after this," she says. "I think it does fall under their jurisdiction, but I wouldn't rely on that being enough." She says Congress could pass a law preventing such marketing, as well.
Philip Kirby says his probation officer finally relented when he lifted his shirt and showed that his rash was covering his whole body.
That rash has since cleared up, but it has left a pattern of white spots on his arms.
"I don't know if they'll go away," he says. "I hope they go away eventually."
He says he wishes he'd never taken Vivitrol in the first place.

This story is part of a reporting collaboration with NPR, Side Effects Public MediaKaiser Health News and WFYI. Esther Honig of WOSU in Columbus, Ohio; Bram Sable-Smith of KBIA in Columbia, Mo.; and NPR's Shaheen Ainpour contributed reporting.

March 30, 2017

Pharma Opposes Legal Pot-To Make Their Own Synthetic One

Last year, backers of an Arizona initiative to legalize recreational marijuana ran into stiff resistance from a large pharmaceutical company. Opponents of Proposition 205 got a huge boost from drug company Insys Therapeutics in the form of a $500,000 donation.

At the time, an Insys spokesperson said the company was opposing legalization because "it fails to protect the safety of Arizona's citizens, and particularly its children." However, the real reason, which was made official last week, was because Insys didn't want competition.

Insys' new synthetic marijuana drug, Syndros, was given a green light by the FDA, as well as  preliminary approval by the Drug Enforcement Agency, last July. That approval became official last Thursday. The purpose of the new medication is to treat nausea in patients suffering from cancer and AIDS – something that natural cannabis does quite well for a fraction of the cost.

In keeping with the rank hypocrisy of the anti-marijuana legalization cabal, the DEA now lists Syndros in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act – which includes cocaine and prescription opioid painkillers, while natural cannabis remains Schedule I.

Several years ago, corporate attorneys for Insys wrote a letter to the DEA, urging the agency to keep marijuana criminalized because of "the abuse potential in terms of the need to grow and cultivate substantial crops of marijuana in the United States." At the same time, they petitioned the DEA to ease up on restrictions of the production of synthetic cannabidol (CBD), a less psychoactive compound in marijuana that has been proven effective in treating epilepsy. It should come as no surprise that Insys has been working on its own CBD product.

Now, the story gets interesting. It turns out the Insys is under investigation while being sued by shareholders for illegally marketing highly-addictive opioid painkillers. Six former Insys executives were arrested in December on charges of racketeering. According to the FBI, the conspired to "sell a highly potent and addictive opioid that can lead to abuse and life threatening respiratory depression."

No coincidentally, Insys is working on a treatment for opioid overdose.

It is worth pointing out that in states that have legalized marijuana, those natural humans who wish to go into business as growers and suppliers must pass very strict background checks and have squeaky clean records. However, it is becoming clear that corporate "people" are exempt from those high standards that natural people are held to.

This is also another example of the rank hypocrisy of America's so-called "free market" capitalist system. Supposedly, a free market is based on competition, and rewards those who can provide the best products at the lowest price. However, when it comes to big corporations, government agencies can – and often do – rig the rules of the game.

Aside from that, it turns out that synthetic marijuana, unlike natural cannabis, can have serious, and even deadly toxic side effects. But that doesn't matter when corporate profits are on the line.

For Big Pharma, it's business as usual and the rest of us will be paying the price. There may be a bit of justice in store for Insys, however. According to the independent investment research and analysis website Seeking Alpha, investors who were keeping an eye on the development and approval for Syndros had been hoping for a much-less strict Schedule 3 classification by the DEA  ("drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence"). This would have put it in the same category as codeine, anabolic steroids and testosterone replacement treatments. Between Syndros’ Schedule II classification and last week's arrests of former Insys executives and the arrest of a doctor last week, Seeking Alpha considers Syndros "too worrisome to prescribe" and is advising investors to "avoid [Insys] at all costs."

February 5, 2016

Pharma Bro Pleas the Fifth-A closer Look at this Bro with an Interactive Graph


"Pharma Bro"
Martin Shkreli pleaded the Fifth at his Congressional hearing on pharmaceutical pricing. When asked to discuss raising the price of Daraprim, a pill used to treat a parasitic condition that can occur in pregnant women and people with HIV, by over 5,500%, Shkreli invoked the Fifth Amendment. Shkreli is also being accused of looting Retrophin, the pharmaceutical company he had founded.

Include the following visualizations to show a timeline of Martin Shkreli's life, the most profitable sectors, and the largest pharmaceutical fines in recent years.

Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...