← Back to context

Comment by Kaminsk13

17 days ago

I'm not sure why the hims investors ever thought that this was legal

They probably didn't, they just took the bet that this was one of the crimes that are currently legal, like crypto scams, environmental crimes, bribery, and tay evasion for the rich.

Some of the most profitable ventures this century have been objectively illegal, but when you know you won't go to prison for violating the law, why would you care to follow it?

  • The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally.

    • Also:

        human dissection (grave robbing)
        translating the Bible into English
        silk production outside of China (death penalty for exporting worm eggs)
        rubber production in Asia (seeds smuggled out of Brazil)
        the Underground Railroad
        heliocentrism
        AIDS treatment (see Dallas Buyers Club)
        Needle exchange programs for IV drug users
        Ridesharing/airbnb/napster (obvious ones)
        SF gay marriage licenses (in defiance of CA law)

      5 replies →

    • > The process of chlorinating water was first done illegally.

      I tried to find a source on this but it doesn't seem to be true? The first chapter of this book describes the history of chlorination: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Chlorina... (which is a source Wikipedia cites) and it doesn't appear to mention anything about illegally chlorinating water. After looking in that book I asked ChatGPT to find a source for the claim, and it reported the claim was false. Chlorination was initially controversial but I can't find anything claiming it was illegal?

      2 replies →

It probably is legal at the moment, but the rules may be changed to make it illegal. But also Uber and Lyft were super illegal when they were invested in. To some extent, YCombinator partners are on the record[0] supporting the idea of their startups doing illegal things.

Generally they'll frame this as challenging outdated regulations, but they acknowledge that the founders whose strategies they fully support sometimes come into office hours and discuss how they're worried that the strategy puts them at risk of going to jail.

There are different kinds of illegal, and Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care. The jury is very much still out.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-ZIiwiN1o&t=8m46s

  • Pretty sure it's illegal. You can get peptides (even GLP-1's) legally from various sources for "Research Purposes", but they're marked as "Not For Human Consumption" (even though, on the sly, I'm sure they're aware people are buying these for human consumption and they provide purity tests etc.) What makes it illegal though, is when you say it is for human consumption, or worse market it as a treatment for a disease. That's when you actually need FDA approval.

    • Compounding pharmacies generally operate outside of what we typically think of when we think of "FDA approval".

  • > Hims/Hers may end up getting blocked from their current business model, or they may end up entrenching new ways for consumers to get affordable care

    Well, no: the thing that's a lot cheaper is a placebo at best, and they were just referred to the DOJ for prosecution.

    The rest is more expensive

    • Hims offered semaglutide for $99/month. That’s a 90% discount on unsubsidized consumer prices for injectable semaglutide. I also don’t see any evidence that they sold a placebo, but I’m just catching up now, perhaps I missed where they’re selling something with a different active ingredient which does not work.

      8 replies →

The charitable assumption is that investors weren't aware it was a problem.

AFAIK it's a meme stock, reality doesn't matter anymore than it matters for Tesla or Gamestock.

  • I am bored to tears by this and it is simultaneously heart-breaking. My MD friend wasted $100K on MicroStrategy, ignoring my advice when he asked for it a couple months ago, and he's like "It's fine I'm not 65." and then proceeded to explain he absolutely should hold it because Trump will add it to Bitcoin strategic reserve.

    Been following the market for 30 years and I've never seen loss per share > $10. They lost $42/share. Didn't make a dent in our conversation, I think he just ignored it twice.