He has a couple interesting interviews out there. I wouldn't know how to find it again but I watched a live stream where he was taking questions from anyone. A gay man confronted him about his pricing of that one drug he raised by several thousand percent. He actually had a decent answer. It might have been all bullshit but it made me see him in a slightly different light.
As far as I remember, his answer was that (1) the product was underpriced and it's a company's duty to get as much profit as possible for their shareholders etc. and (2) the product itself was very cheap and they offered it for free for anyone without insurance – apparently about 40% of it was given away this way. Now, he might just be a charismatic psychopath, but if this is true it does indeed put him in quite a different light.
edit: yes, it might've been 60% instead of 40%, I wanted to err on the side of caution :)
in another interview with Vice, he says that 2/3 of the products were given out for free. That only the big corporation would pay full price for the product, so who cares? And that most of the profits (60%) would go into R&D.
