Price of 40-year-old cancer drug raised from $50 to $768 a pill

I heartily say fuck these people for doing this.

The FDA may not care, but the DEA may have something to say about it.


Quelle surprise! The wonder is that we are not seeing a lot more of this in the zeitgeist of the times.

1 Like

Anything on a DEA schedule is subject to importation restriction.

Any molecule recognized by the FDA is subject to its rules.

Anything a cop says is illicit is illicit until proven otherwise by due process.

You are fuct if you try to import your Chinese drug. Smuggle… Different story…


If the drug is 40 years old, why is no one making a generic?


See, e.g.,

Not all drugs with expired patent protection have generic versions for many reasons (possibilities could include not enough demand for a generic, difficult to produce, not enough cost benefit, etc.)


This seems worth posting again:

Xenazine is the US trade name for Tetrabenazine. It’s an out of patent drug, developed more than fifty years ago.

In Australia, it’s $38.80 per 112 pill bottle for me (a two-month supply). If I were on any sort of government support, it’d be $6.30/bottle. The government pays the drug company $338.60/bottle.

In the USA:


Two words: patent reform.

Er, I’m not sure I follow you. Why would any for-profit firm produce a drug for zero profit?


Wow! You sure are EASY. Credibility cuts both ways, so I recommend a more symmetrical outlook in dealing with countries. And no - molecules are in no way subject to anybody’s laws, citizens can be, with regards to those molecules. Good luck negotiating your place in other people’s society.

A substance only becomes a drug once it is intended for human consumption.

it’s “disruptive”, yo.


Just went to the NextSource Pharmaceuticals “contact us” page to send a note to CEO DeCrisi. The form would not send (and yes, I know all-too-well how they work as I own a web development shop).

Guess they’re getting hammered on so turned sending off.


A for-profit firm should make profit within the reach of a consumer. Anymore it just rent seeking.

Okay, but are you saying tax 100% profit from the drug or just 100% of the profit difference before and after a price increase? In the latter case, isn’t that the same as just capping the price?

100% on the difference between the original market price and the markup price. So they can keep the original price profits but no more. Because it comes down to rent seeking when they decide to markup the price well beyond what the consumer could pay under normal circumstances of what their insurance would cover. It’s clearly a grift on the insurance companies which I have no sympathies for but it leads to consumers losing access to a valuable good which has no patents.


U mad, PharmaBro?

Hmm…I did just go and leave him a nice note via LinkedIn’s InMail. If you’d like to do the same, here is a link to his profile:


I’m specifically talking about how to get your made-in-China back to the USA without spending time in jail… I know you like to go vague to be cute. But that’s what I’m specifically addressing here.


Such a lovely country you’ve got there y’all. I’ve not been invited over, so thanks for the ignore. I’ll just stay here since I hear your ways will be reaching us pretty soon anyway.

My brother’s fiancee believes the story that “Shkreli was just trying to bring attention to the problems with regulation.”

Which pretty much amounts to admiring someone for shooting up a school so they could “bring awareness to the danger of selling AR-15s to mentally unstable people.”

That’s not at all what they were doing, and she’s a moron for believing it, and even if that’s what they actually were trying to do, they’re a monster and wrong anyway.


Also, invalid patents in the first place.

The whole point of a patent is that any relevant craftsman of average skill in the field can use just the patent and their knowledge to reproduce the technology.

If that bar isn’t met, the patent itself is invalid. It’s just that the USPTO doesn’t actually do its due diligence and rubberstamps thousands to hundreds of thousands of vague patents that don’t actually give away the “trade secrets” every year. Essentially giving monopoly privilege without insisting on the fair trade of the invention truly going into the public domain later.