Connect with us

Breaking: After Outrage Pharmaceutical Exec Now Says He’ll Drop AIDS Drug Price – Won’t Say How Much

Published

on

A pharmaceutical start up looking to make big money with a 62-year old drug whose price they raised 5500% now says they’ll drop the price. But by how much?

Daraprim, a decades-old pharmaceutical used to help AIDS and cancer patients with life-threatening parasitic infections jumped in price from $13 a pill to $750 a pill when the rights to the drug were sold to a start up run by a former hedge fund manager.

After the New York Times ran a story about the 5500% price-gouging, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted about it – causing pharmaceutical companies’ stock prices to take a dive – the nation grew outraged.

Martin Shkreli, the founder of Turning Pharmaceuticals and a former hedge fund manager who reportedly took a similar tact with another drug, scalping needy patients, refused to cut the price back to $13, promising all week he would not budge, as you can see in the interview above.

But minutes ago Shkreli announced he would respond to public pressure and drop the price, but he has refused to state yet how much.

In response, Hillary Clinton offered this tweet:

UPDATE I: 7:38 PM EDT –

Below is a letter dated Monday. Sept. 21, from Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Elijah Cummings to Turing notifying the company they will investigate the price increase.  

 

This article has been updated with a newer news video. 
Thanks to reader Christopher Rioux for the Sanders/Cummings letter.

Image: Screenshot via CNBC 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

AOC Slams McCarthy and His GOP ‘Ku Klux Klan Caucus’ for Allowing ‘Violent Targeting’ of Women of Color in Congress

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is criticizing House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy for refusing to deal with the members of his “Ku Klux Klan” caucus who are ignoring and allowing the “violent targeting” of women of color members of Congress.

The Democratic Congresswoman from New York, herself the frequent target of violent threats, pointed to this video of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar playing a death threat received after she was targeted by GOP Congresswoman Lauren Boebert:

“People truly don’t understand the scale, intensity, & volume of threats targeting” Congresswoman Omar, Ocasio-Cortez says.

“Kevin McCarthy is so desperate to be speaker that he is working with his Ku Klux Klan caucus to look aside & allow violent targeting of woc members of Congress. This cannot be ignored,” she warns.

Congresswoman Boebert over the past week was exposed – on video – suggesting Rep. Omar is a terrorist three times, including in one video she herself posted to social media.

McCarthy has refused to take any action against Boebert.

 

 

Continue Reading

'BLAZING POSITIVE'

‘Massive, Dangerous, Likely Intentional’: Immunologist Blasts Trump for Ignoring Positive COVID Test Before Biden Debate

Published

on

A Harvard epidemiologist, immunologist and physician is blasting Donald Trump‘s decision to continue his activities as normal in September 2020, not go public with the results of his positive COVID test result, and continue business as usual – including participating in a debate against Joe Biden – revelations made in a new book by Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Wednesday.

Dr. Michael Mina says if Trump had been given a rapid COVID test the day of the first presidential debate against Joe Biden, President Trump “would have been blazing positive,” and calls the decision to not test “massive, dangerous and likely intentional.”

“The decision to continue to not test on [the] day of the Rose Garden superspreader event and on [the] day of the debate with now @POTUS Biden was a massive, dangerous and likely intentional decision,” says Michael Mina, an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and an Assistant Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“Was Trump the superspreader? For a year, I’ve suggested Trump was the likely superspreader at White House Rose Garden on 9/28/20,” Mina posits. “All were supposedly tested, so how would a superspreader enter? Now we know Trump tested COVID positive 2 days earlier.”

Citing Meadows’ new book, The Guardian reported Wednesday morning that Trump tested positive on Sept. 26, and shortly thereafter, before the Sept. 29 presidential debate, tested negative – but three days after the debate, on Oct. 2, again tested positive, and was rushed to Walter Reed hospital hours later.

Because Trump “was testing so frequently, he was [likely] detected using a molecular test at the earliest time, before becoming infectious,” says Mina.

“So when he immediately tested again with a rapid Ag test, it did not yet register positive because he was not YET infectious,” Mina explains. “Had he used a rapid test later that day or next day though, once he was becoming slightly infectious, he almost certainly would have been positive.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Listen Live: US Supreme Court Arguments in Case That Will Decide Future of Abortion in America

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday morning will hear oral arguments in what will be a decisive case for the future of abortion in America.

Justices will hear arguments in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, over a Mississippi abortion ban designed to overturn the nearly 50-year old precedent-setting ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Listen live starting at 10 AM ET below via C-SPAN or a Reuters feed:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.