Prescription Drugs from India

I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro, Mevacor or
Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the price in the US,
if bought by mail order from India. The website looks just
as reputable as most Canadian pharmaceutical websites.

I thought I might try them. Can anyone comment on any
problems with ordering prescription drugs from India?

Example: http://www.shoprxonline.com/srxo-orderinfo.html

Thanks for any input.

--
James
-

"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro, Mevacor
> or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the price in the
> US, if bought by mail order from India. The website looks
> just as reputable as most Canadian pharmaceutical
> websites.
>
...

Sure, if you don't mind counterfeit drugs:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00948.html

Stay away, stay very far away...

"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:

>"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro, Mevacor
>> or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the price in
>> the US, if bought by mail order from India. The website
>> looks just as reputable as most Canadian pharmaceutical
>> websites.

>Sure, if you don't mind counterfeit drugs:
>http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00948.html

>Stay away, stay very far away...

And increase Big Pharma's profits.

You'll notice that lots of weasel words such as "unapproved"
are used without saying just what that means. In the case of
shoprxonline the drugs, produced by Indian pharmaceutical
giants such as Cipla who also produce some of the US drugs,
are approved...by the Indian government for use and sale in
their country. And since they're exported around the world
and we haven't heard of any fatalities (and Big Pharma IS
watching) I guess they haven't killed too many people.

You'll also notice that most of the fda's complaints concern
not counterfeit drugs but things such as "Drugs with
dangerous reactions". They might conflict with other drugs
the customers are taking thereby cutting both Big Pharma and
big medicine out of their super-profits. It's not too hard
to read up on the drug using the same (or better) sources
than your average PCP. See Medscape DrugInfo or Rx.com or
Drugs.com (the PDR).

Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
aren't. However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one
of the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for
up-to-date info.

Well, I think I'll try the Cialis. If it does not kill me, I
will know its efficacy within 30 minutes. At my age (about
80), what do I have to lose?
:-)

James

- "James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro, Mevacor
> or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the price in the
> US, if bought by mail order from India. The website looks
> just as reputable as most Canadian pharmaceutical
> websites.
>
> I thought I might try them. Can anyone comment on any
> problems with
ordering
> prescription drugs from India?
>
> Example: http://www.shoprxonline.com/srxo-orderinfo.html
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> --
> James -

InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the
> >> price in the US, if bought by mail order from India.
> >> The website looks just as reputable as most Canadian
> >> pharmaceutical websites.
>
> >Sure, if you don't mind counterfeit drugs:
> >http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00948.html
>
> >Stay away, stay very far away...
>
> And increase Big Pharma's profits.
>
> You'll notice that lots of weasel words such as
> "unapproved" are used without saying just what that means.
> In the case of shoprxonline the drugs, produced by Indian
> pharmaceutical giants such as Cipla who also produce some
> of the US drugs, are approved...by the Indian government
> for use and sale in their country. And since they're
> exported around the world and we haven't heard of any
> fatalities (and Big Pharma IS watching) I guess they
> haven't killed too many people.

The Indian press is a bit skeptical of their own pharma
industry. http://www.blonnet.com/2003/08/03/stories/2003080-
301260500.htm
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/11/30/new22.html

The Indian Parliament is considering the death penalty for
manufacturers of counterfeit drugs - why? Apparently because
they kill people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3331985.stm

Here's more. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3261385.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1912170.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1912226.stm http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../327/7412/414-
b http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-WHA02.html

The FDA has some pretty specific examples of Canadian drugs
that actually are counterfeits from India.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/co...it/photo3.html

> You'll also notice that most of the fda's complaints
> concern not counterfeit drugs but things such as "Drugs
> with dangerous reactions". They might conflict with other
> drugs the customers are taking thereby cutting both Big
> Pharma and big medicine out of their super-profits. It's
> not too hard to read up on the drug using the same (or
> better) sources than your average PCP. See Medscape
> DrugInfo or Rx.com or Drugs.com (the PDR).

Here is the FDA's policy statement:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/qa.html

I don't buy the argument that the FDA is intersted in
anything more than patient dafety. And I think the evidence
provided to date suggests that counterfeit drugs is not a
trivial or inconsequential risk, especially if drugs are
purchased internationally over the internet.

> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that aren't.

They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic Cialis
anywhere in the world.

> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of the
> weightlifting groups or the impotence group for up-to-
> date info.

I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more than
opinion. I like the links better. But if you want medical
advice, sci.med has got to be better than
drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.

js

jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:

>InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
>news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
>> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
>> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of the
>> >> price in the US, if bought by mail order from India.
>> >> The website looks just as reputable as most Canadian
>> >> pharmaceutical websites.

>> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
>> aren't.

>They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
>counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic Cialis
>anywhere in the world.

If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're correct but
pedantic. As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or
Sildenafil Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?" from
the prospective purchaser so these companies (all of them)
use the US brand names and add the word "generic". Last time
I checked Lilly doesn't sell Cialis in capsule form either.

By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
suspect most people) understand that instead of Tadalafil
you'd be getting a capsule that contained no or insufficient
active ingredient. Most of your URL's in fact use
counterfeiting in this sense and those from India are
certainly not referring to the products of Cipla or Ranbaxy.

>> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of the
>> weightlifting groups or the impotence group for up-to-
>> date info.

>I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more than
>opinion. I like the links better. But if you want medical
>advice, sci.med has got to be better than
>drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.

Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is the
pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when they're
not arguing about autism or vaccination--just as you're
expressing. The people on the body building groups are
ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only have to
worry about monetary loss but also that the drugs might be
delivered by the DEA. It's extremely important to them that
the source be reliable and discrete so you'll find long term
posters (check google) with a good track record endorsing or
condemning particular suppliers. Unlike sci.med it's a case
of users helping other users.

As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and its
main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to ask about
them is alt.support.impotence. The same attitude of mutual
help prevails on that group.

InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message news:<uqsv40976hagvmcnispmasqkdjd9tn24to@4ax.com>...
> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
> >news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
> >> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
> >> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of
> >> >> the price in the US, if bought by mail order from
> >> >> India. The website looks just as reputable as most
> >> >> Canadian pharmaceutical websites.
>
> >> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
> >> aren't.
>
> >They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
> >counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic Cialis
> >anywhere in the world.
>
> If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're correct
> but pedantic.

So is the law.

> As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or Sildenafil
> Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?" from the
> prospective purchaser so these companies (all of them) use
> the US brand names and add the word "generic". Last time I
> checked Lilly doesn't sell Cialis in capsule form either.

So it isn't Cialis at all then, is it. And as an
unapproved new drug, tadanafil-generic is illegal to
import to the US unless it is labeled as clinical supplies
under an active IND.

> By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
> suspect most people) understand that instead of Tadalafil
> you'd be getting a capsule that contained no or
> insufficient active ingredient. Most of your URL's in fact
> use counterfeiting in this sense and those from India are
> certainly not referring to the products of Cipla or
> Ranbaxy.

I gave you plenty of evidence that the pharmaceutical
industry in India has a significant problem with counterfeit
drugs. What makes you think that the Cipla or Ranbaxy labels
are genuine? What makes you think Cipla and Ranbaxy are
quality manufacturers? What makes you so confident that what
this website is selling isn't fake?

As far as I could tell - and I looked - Cipla does not have
a single approved NDA - not one. As such, the FDA would not
be required to inspect their manufacturing facilities. They
do have a thriving raw materials capability but API approval
is not the same as an approved
DMF.

Even if the company is as good as you say, there is no
evidence that the content of the package you receive
actually came from them. In the case of Indian counterfeits,
it is reasonable to think that imitating the local market
leader is a viable strategy to pursue. If you were to
receive a drug with a Cipra label, would you recognize it as
fake? What would you compare to?

> >> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of
> >> the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for up-to-
> >> date info.
>
> >I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more than
> >opinion. I like the links better. But if you want medical
> >advice, sci.med has got to be better than
> >drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.
>
> Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is the
> pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when
> they're not arguing about autism or vaccination--just as
> you're expressing.

What you are likely to get are people who actually know
something about science and medicine.

> The people on the body building groups are
> ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only have
> to worry about monetary loss but also that the drugs might
> be delivered by the DEA. It's extremely important to them
> that the source be reliable and discrete so you'll find
> long term posters (check google) with a good track record
> endorsing or condemning particular suppliers. Unlike
> sci.med it's a case of users helping other users.

You want medical advice from someone who is breaking the law
and misusing drugs? To each his own.

This is what you said - "Shoprxonline is reputable but there
are those that aren't." and you know this because soemone on
an NG told you so.

Here you go - this is one of this reputable company's
policies:

"In order to make your shopping experience hassle free, our
qualified on-staff physician will issue a prescription for
each order so we can legally fill and ship your
prescription."

This doesn't raise any questions about ethics in your mind?

And this:

"U.S. medicine names are for reference only. You are
purchasing equivalent medicines from India. The medicines
are made under strict regulations and often by the same
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in the U.S. such
as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer and the facilities are
FDA approved."

Do you actually believe this is true? The part about them
being manufactured by big pharma and then labeled locally
and sold at pennies on the dollar?

Or this: "All of our generic medicines are manufacturered in
FDA approved facilities and come in factory sealed packaging
with expiration dates."

> As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and its
> main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to ask
> about them is alt.support.impotence. The same attitude of
> mutual help prevails on that group.

Buying offshore over the internet, especially from India, is
a foolish and dangerous thing to do. I gave you a dozen
sources that provide evidence of the risk - from FDA to BBC
to the Indian government itself.

Are you really that cavalier to suggest that the risk is
worth the few dollars you might save? Health is about the
only thing you can't fix with money once you screw it up.

And then to argue that it's ok because you have a
weightlifter NG following that has identified the good ones?

That's pretty dumb, in my opinion. But you are entitled - go
for it and become another example that Darwin was right.

js

jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:

>InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
>news:<uqsv40976hagvmcnispmasqkdjd9tn24to@4ax.com>...
>> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:

>> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
>> >news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
>> >> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:

>> >> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> >> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
>> >> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of
>> >> >> the price in the US, if bought by mail order from
>> >> >> India. The website looks just as reputable as most
>> >> >> Canadian pharmaceutical websites.

>> >> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
>> >> aren't.

>> >They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
>> >counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic Cialis
>> >anywhere in the world.

>> If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're correct
>> but pedantic.

>So is the law.

Before I reply to this I'd like you to answer a question:
Are you employed or have you ever been employed by any US
drug company or by any person or organization contracted to
them or in any way representing them or by the FDA or by
any law enforcement group or by any propaganda group for
the US drug industry or are you or have you any relatives
or yourself employed in or owning any US pharmacy or do you
own any stock in any corporation that would be likely to
benefit by the reduction in import of pharmaceuticals from
outside the US?

You sure sound like you do. Before you ask, personally I can
answer no to the above unless one of the mutual funds of my
401K plans owns stock in a pharmaceutical company. Nor do I
own or benefit in any way (other than as a consumer) from
purchasing drugs from outside the US
(e.g. by having an interest in Shoprxonline).

>> As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or Sildenafil
>> Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?" from the
>> prospective purchaser so these companies (all of them)
>> use the US brand names and add the word "generic". Last
>> time I checked Lilly doesn't sell Cialis in capsule form
>> either.

>So it isn't Cialis at all then, is it. And as an
>unapproved new drug, tadanafil-generic is illegal to
>import to the US unless it is labeled as clinical supplies
>under an active IND.

Not illegal to purchase; illegal to sell. Big difference. No
risk to the purchaser from legal action unless he resells or
the drugs are scheduled substances. Part of the reason you
need to ask in the various groups is to determine what the
supplier does if the goods are seized. Shoprxonline retries
or refunds your money if the goods don't arrive. They
guarantee delivery. (These people should pay me a
commission)

>> By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
>> suspect most people) understand that instead of Tadalafil
>> you'd be getting a capsule that contained no or
>> insufficient active ingredient. Most of your URL's in
>> fact use counterfeiting in this sense and those from
>> India are certainly not referring to the products of
>> Cipla or Ranbaxy.

>I gave you plenty of evidence that the pharmaceutical
>industry in India has a significant problem with
>counterfeit drugs. What makes you think that the Cipla or
>Ranbaxy labels are genuine?

What makes you think the labels of Pfizer, Lilly and Bayer
on the US drugs are real? In fact there was a piece on
(IIRC) 60 minutes where that was exactly the problem; the
wholesaler was supplying counterfeit (in my sense) drugs
with seemingly valid brand names to the pharmacies.

> What makes you think Cipla and Ranbaxy are quality
> manufacturers?

Well known. See websites. The head of Cipla was interviewed
in The New Yorker about his offer to supply (counterfeit in
your sense) AIDS drugs to South Africa. Drugs are supplied
in bubble packs with the Indian government's seal, not in
baggies as is the case with the home-grown variety.

> What makes you so confident that what this website is
> selling isn't fake?

>As far as I could tell - and I looked - Cipla does not have
>a single approved NDA - not one. As such, the FDA would not
>be required to inspect their manufacturing facilities. They
>do have a thriving raw materials capability but API
>approval is not the same as an approved
>DMF.

The fact that you quote abbreviations such as NDA and API
makes me think that you have more than a concerned amateur
status in this discussion.

>Even if the company is as good as you say, there is no
>evidence that the content of the package you receive
>actually came from them. In the case of Indian
>counterfeits, it is reasonable to think that imitating the
>local market leader is a viable strategy to pursue. If you
>were to receive a drug with a Cipra label, would you
>recognize it as fake? What would you compare to?

The real thing in its reaction. I wouldn't recognize a fake
$20 bill either (without lots of work) but if the
supermarket takes it, it's real.

>> >> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of
>> >> the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for
>> >> up-to-date info.

>> >I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more
>> >than opinion. I like the links better. But if you want
>> >medical advice, sci.med has got to be better than
>> >drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.

>> Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is
>> the pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when
>> they're not arguing about autism or vaccination--just as
>> you're expressing.

>What you are likely to get are people who actually know
>something about science and medicine.

But who are unwilling to share their knowledge and/or have a
very conservative view (i.e. they're good little drones) of
treatment or they simply don't know very much about the
particular condition. Do you really think anon (to take an
example) knows as much about steroid use as a biochemist
working in the body builder area? Or Howard as much as some
guy suffering from ED and who has made the required
investigation? For example there's an erroneous (or
incomplete statement) in the drug contraindications for
Cialis and Levitra but

can tell us what it is. Nope, the horror stories about the
MD activity and lack of knowledge would boggle the mind.

>> The people on the body building groups are
>> ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only have
>> to worry about monetary loss but also that the drugs
>> might be delivered by the DEA. It's extremely important
>> to them that the source be reliable and discrete so
>> you'll find long term posters (check google) with a good
>> track record endorsing or condemning particular
>> suppliers. Unlike sci.med it's a case of users helping
>> other users.

>You want medical advice from someone who is breaking the
>law and misusing drugs? To each his own.

I presume you've never smoked pot or hashish or used --god
forbid--cocaine? And you doubtless wear a hard hat, and eye
and ear protection when you open a can. Seat belt, air bag,
full body harness, and roll bar--and keep it under 10 mph
when you drive a car. Is your real name Ned Flanders?

Most PCP's know squat about the two subjects we're
discussing here. The body builders can speak for themselves
but for ED there's basic information on Mescape, information
about the drugs on MedScape DrugInfo, Rx.com, Drugs.com, and
cutting edge information on Medline. Anyone with a computer
can know more than the average PCP in a couple of hours.

>This is what you said - "Shoprxonline is reputable but
>there are those that aren't." and you know this because
>soemone on an NG told you so.

>Here you go - this is one of this reputable company's
>policies:

>"In order to make your shopping experience hassle free, our
>qualified on-staff physician will issue a prescription for
>each order so we can legally fill and ship your
>prescription."

>This doesn't raise any questions about ethics in your mind?

Not at all. It simply says that we've got some stupid drug
laws and Shoprxonline is assisting the buyer in
circumventing them.

>And this:

>"U.S. medicine names are for reference only. You are
>purchasing equivalent medicines from India. The medicines
>are made under strict regulations and often by the same
>pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in the U.S. such
>as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer and the facilities are
>FDA approved."

>Do you actually believe this is true? The part about them
>being manufactured by big pharma and then labeled locally
>and sold at pennies on the dollar?

Many US companies drug companies manufacture or subcontract
the manufacture of the base to other countries.

Let's see. In 2000 I priced bulk Sildenafil Citrate from
China at $3,000 a key (minimum order). At the maximum dosage
(100mg) that works

ingredients and rent or buy a pill pressing machine or make
an alcohol suspension (even cheaper) and you have a base
cost of $0.50 for which Shoprxonline are asking $3. Big
markup eh? But it pales into

from drugstore.com at $8.66. And that's cheap. Some real
bricks and mortar pharmacies are asking $13.00.

competition in the pharmaceutical industry <g>) but,
depending on the level of risk you want to take, "generic
cialis" can be had for as low as 0.50 per 20mg (not Shoprxonline)--
tablet or in alcohol suspension at around $1.00.

>Or this: "All of our generic medicines are manufacturered
>in FDA approved facilities and come in factory sealed
>packaging with expiration dates."

>> As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and
>> its main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to
>> ask about them is alt.support.impotence. The same
>> attitude of mutual help prevails on that group.

>Buying offshore over the internet, especially from India,
>is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. I gave you a dozen
>sources that provide evidence of the risk - from FDA to BBC
>to the Indian government itself.

>Are you really that cavalier to suggest that the risk is
>worth the few dollars you might save? Health is about the
>only thing you can't fix with money once you screw it up.

Not a few dollars. Don't want to take any risks in life,
fine, pay Pfizer or Lilly their extortionate mark up (save
the arguments about R&D); if you're willing to take some
risk you can save lots of money. And we went through why
those Chicken Little URL's you quoted don't apply or are
simply self-serving.

>And then to argue that it's ok because you have a
>weightlifter NG following that has identified the
>good ones?

>That's pretty dumb, in my opinion. But you are entitled -
>go for it and become another example that Darwin was right.

Save the insults too.

jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:

>InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
>news:<uqsv40976hagvmcnispmasqkdjd9tn24to@4ax.com>...
>> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:

>> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
>> >news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
>> >> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:

>> >> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> >> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
>> >> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of
>> >> >> the price in the US, if bought by mail order from
>> >> >> India. The website looks just as reputable as most
>> >> >> Canadian pharmaceutical websites.

>> >> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
>> >> aren't.

>> >They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
>> >counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic Cialis
>> >anywhere in the world.

>> If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're correct
>> but pedantic.

>So is the law.

Before I reply to this I'd like you to answer a question:
Are you employed or have you ever been employed by any US
drug company or by any person or organization contracted to
them or in any way representing them or by the FDA or by
any law enforcement group or by any propaganda group for
the US drug industry or are you or have you any relatives
or yourself employed in or owning any US pharmacy or do you
own any stock in any corporation that would be likely to
benefit by the reduction in import of pharmaceuticals from
outside the US?

You sure sound like you do. Before you ask, personally I can
answer no to the above unless one of the mutual funds of my
401K plans owns stock in a pharmaceutical company. Nor do I
own or benefit in any way (other than as a consumer) from
purchasing drugs from outside the US
(e.g. by having an interest in Shoprxonline).

>> As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or Sildenafil
>> Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?" from the
>> prospective purchaser so these companies (all of them)
>> use the US brand names and add the word "generic". Last
>> time I checked Lilly doesn't sell Cialis in capsule form
>> either.

>So it isn't Cialis at all then, is it. And as an
>unapproved new drug, tadanafil-generic is illegal to
>import to the US unless it is labeled as clinical supplies
>under an active IND.

Not illegal to purchase; illegal to sell. Big difference. No
risk to the purchaser from legal action unless he resells or
the drugs are scheduled substances. Part of the reason you
need to ask in the various groups is to determine what the
supplier does if the goods are seized. Shoprxonline retries
or refunds your money if the goods don't arrive. They
guarantee delivery. (These people should pay me a
commission)

>> By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
>> suspect most people) understand that instead of Tadalafil
>> you'd be getting a capsule that contained no or
>> insufficient active ingredient. Most of your URL's in
>> fact use counterfeiting in this sense and those from
>> India are certainly not referring to the products of
>> Cipla or Ranbaxy.

>I gave you plenty of evidence that the pharmaceutical
>industry in India has a significant problem with
>counterfeit drugs. What makes you think that the Cipla or
>Ranbaxy labels are genuine?

What makes you think the labels of Pfizer, Lilly and Bayer
on the US drugs are real? In fact there was a piece on
(IIRC) 60 minutes where that was exactly the problem; the
wholesaler was supplying counterfeit (in my sense) drugs
with seemingly valid brand names to the pharmacies.

> What makes you think Cipla and Ranbaxy are quality
> manufacturers?

Well known. See websites. The head of Cipla was interviewed
in The New Yorker about his offer to supply (counterfeit in
your sense) AIDS drugs to South Africa. Drugs are supplied
in bubble packs with the Indian government's seal, not in
baggies as is the case with the home-grown variety.

> What makes you so confident that what this website is
> selling isn't fake?

>As far as I could tell - and I looked - Cipla does not have
>a single approved NDA - not one. As such, the FDA would not
>be required to inspect their manufacturing facilities. They
>do have a thriving raw materials capability but API
>approval is not the same as an approved
>DMF.

The fact that you quote abbreviations such as NDA and API
makes me think that you have more than a concerned amateur
status in this discussion.

>Even if the company is as good as you say, there is no
>evidence that the content of the package you receive
>actually came from them. In the case of Indian
>counterfeits, it is reasonable to think that imitating the
>local market leader is a viable strategy to pursue. If you
>were to receive a drug with a Cipra label, would you
>recognize it as fake? What would you compare to?

The real thing in its reaction. I wouldn't recognize a fake
$20 bill either (without lots of work) but if the
supermarket takes it, it's real.

>> >> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of
>> >> the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for
>> >> up-to-date info.

>> >I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more
>> >than opinion. I like the links better. But if you want
>> >medical advice, sci.med has got to be better than
>> >drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.

>> Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is
>> the pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when
>> they're not arguing about autism or vaccination--just as
>> you're expressing.

>What you are likely to get are people who actually know
>something about science and medicine.

But who are unwilling to share their knowledge and/or have a
very conservative view (i.e. they're good little drones) of
treatment or they simply don't know very much about the
particular condition. Do you really think anon (to take an
example) knows as much about steroid use as a biochemist
working in the body builder area? Or Howard as much as some
guy suffering from ED and who has made the required
investigation? For example there's an erroneous (or
incomplete statement) in the drug contraindications for
Cialis and Levitra but

can tell us what it is. Nope, the horror stories about the
MD activity and lack of knowledge would boggle the mind.

>> The people on the body building groups are
>> ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only have
>> to worry about monetary loss but also that the drugs
>> might be delivered by the DEA. It's extremely important
>> to them that the source be reliable and discrete so
>> you'll find long term posters (check google) with a good
>> track record endorsing or condemning particular
>> suppliers. Unlike sci.med it's a case of users helping
>> other users.

>You want medical advice from someone who is breaking the
>law and misusing drugs? To each his own.

I presume you've never smoked pot or hashish or used --god
forbid--cocaine? And you doubtless wear a hard hat, and eye
and ear protection when you open a can. Seat belt, air bag,
full body harness, and roll bar--and keep it under 10 mph
when you drive a car. Is your real name Ned Flanders?

Most PCP's know squat about the two subjects we're
discussing here. The body builders can speak for themselves
but for ED there's basic information on Mescape, information
about the drugs on MedScape DrugInfo, Rx.com, Drugs.com, and
cutting edge information on Medline. Anyone with a computer
can know more than the average PCP in a couple of hours.

>This is what you said - "Shoprxonline is reputable but
>there are those that aren't." and you know this because
>soemone on an NG told you so.

>Here you go - this is one of this reputable company's
>policies:

>"In order to make your shopping experience hassle free, our
>qualified on-staff physician will issue a prescription for
>each order so we can legally fill and ship your
>prescription."

>This doesn't raise any questions about ethics in your mind?

Not at all. It simply says that we've got some stupid drug
laws and Shoprxonline is assisting the buyer in
circumventing them.

>And this:

>"U.S. medicine names are for reference only. You are
>purchasing equivalent medicines from India. The medicines
>are made under strict regulations and often by the same
>pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in the U.S. such
>as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer and the facilities are
>FDA approved."

>Do you actually believe this is true? The part about them
>being manufactured by big pharma and then labeled locally
>and sold at pennies on the dollar?

Many US companies drug companies manufacture or subcontract
the manufacture of the base to other countries.

Let's see. In 2000 I priced bulk Sildenafil Citrate from
China at $3,000 a key (minimum order). At the maximum dosage
(100mg) that works

ingredients and rent or buy a pill pressing machine or make
an alcohol suspension (even cheaper) and you have a base
cost of $0.50 for which Shoprxonline are asking $3. Big
markup eh? But it pales into

from drugstore.com at $8.66. And that's cheap. Some real
bricks and mortar pharmacies are asking $13.00.

competition in the pharmaceutical industry <g>) but,
depending on the level of risk you want to take, "generic
cialis" can be had for as low as 0.50 per 20mg (not Shoprxonline)--
tablet or in alcohol suspension at around $1.00.

>Or this: "All of our generic medicines are manufacturered
>in FDA approved facilities and come in factory sealed
>packaging with expiration dates."

>> As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and
>> its main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to
>> ask about them is alt.support.impotence. The same
>> attitude of mutual help prevails on that group.

>Buying offshore over the internet, especially from India,
>is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. I gave you a dozen
>sources that provide evidence of the risk - from FDA to BBC
>to the Indian government itself.

>Are you really that cavalier to suggest that the risk is
>worth the few dollars you might save? Health is about the
>only thing you can't fix with money once you screw it up.

Not a few dollars. Don't want to take any risks in life,
fine, pay Pfizer or Lilly their extortionate mark up (save
the arguments about R&D); if you're willing to take some
risk you can save lots of money. And we went through why
those Chicken Little URL's you quoted don't apply or are
simply self-serving.

>And then to argue that it's ok because you have a
>weightlifter NG following that has identified the
>good ones?

>That's pretty dumb, in my opinion. But you are entitled -
>go for it and become another example that Darwin was right.

Save the insults too.

InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message news:<r5i2509dornc1s2u1chbav242bo9c388be@4ax.com>...
> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
> >news:<uqsv40976hagvmcnispmasqkdjd9tn24to@4ax.com>...
> >> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
> >> >news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
> >> >> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> >> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
> >> >> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of
> >> >> >> the price in the US, if bought by mail order from
> >> >> >> India. The website looks just as reputable as
> >> >> >> most Canadian pharmaceutical websites.
>
> >> >> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
> >> >> aren't.
>
> >> >They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
> >> >counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic
> >> >Cialis anywhere in the world.
>
> >> If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're
> >> correct but pedantic.
>
> >So is the law.
>
> Before I reply to this I'd like you to answer a question:
> Are you employed or have you ever been employed by any US
> drug company or by any person or organization contracted
> to them or in any way representing them or by the FDA or
> by any law enforcement group or by any propaganda group
> for the US drug industry or are you or have you any
> relatives or yourself employed in or owning any US
> pharmacy or do you own any stock in any corporation that
> would be likely to benefit by the reduction in import of
> pharmaceuticals from outside the US?

I worked in a drug store when I was in high school.

> You sure sound like you do. Before you ask, personally I
> can answer no to the above unless one of the mutual funds
> of my 401K plans owns stock in a pharmaceutical company.
> Nor do I own or benefit in any way (other than as a
> consumer) from purchasing drugs from outside the US
> (e.g. by having an interest in Shoprxonline).

Makes you lilly white and unbiased? I argued the data. I
posted credible sources and provided links. Every statement
I made is supported by facts.

Now, you try the same. The implied "conflict of interest"
strawman is just that - a strawman. You can't argue the
facts so you go for the innuendo? Typical usenet.

> >> As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or
> >> Sildenafil Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?"
> >> from the prospective purchaser so these companies (all
> >> of them) use the US brand names and add the word
> >> "generic". Last time I checked Lilly doesn't sell
> >> Cialis in capsule form either.
>
> >So it isn't Cialis at all then, is it. And as an
> >unapproved new drug, tadanafil-generic is illegal to
> >import to the US unless it is labeled as clinical
> >supplies under an active IND.
>
> Not illegal to purchase;

Illegal to import except under very strict conditions as I
pointed out. And that is specific to the importation for
experimental use under an active IND by a registered
manufacturer.

> illegal to sell. Big difference. No risk to the purchaser
> from legal action unless he resells or the drugs are
> scheduled substances.

Wrong.

What is it about some people that makes them think they know
everything?

Here is the FDA policy on importation of unapproved new
drugs: http://www.fda.gov/ora/import/pipinfo.htm

"The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(Act) (21 U.S.C. section 331) prohibits the interstate
shipment (which includes importation) of unapproved new
drugs. Thus, the importation of drugs that lack FDA
approval, whether for personal use or otherwise, violates
the Act. Unapproved new drugs are any drugs, including
foreign-made versions of U.S. approved drugs, that have
not been manufactured in accordance with and pursuant to
an FDA approval.

Cialis-generic sold by this Indian website is by definition
an unapproved new drug and it is illegal to import.

> Part of the reason you need to ask in the various groups
> is to determine what the supplier does if the goods are
> seized. Shoprxonline retries or refunds your money if the
> goods don't arrive. They guarantee delivery. (These people
> should pay me a commission)

So then - if the goods are confiscated yet it isn't illegal
to import, the agency that confiscates the package is guilty
of illegal search and seizure - they would have violated the
Fourth Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co-
nstitution.billofrights.html

> >> By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
> >> suspect most people) understand that instead of
> >> Tadalafil you'd be getting a capsule that contained no
> >> or insufficient active ingredient. Most of your URL's
> >> in fact use counterfeiting in this sense and those from
> >> India are certainly not referring to the products of
> >> Cipla or Ranbaxy.
>
> >I gave you plenty of evidence that the pharmaceutical
> >industry in India has a significant problem with
> >counterfeit drugs. What makes you think that the Cipla or
> >Ranbaxy labels are genuine?
>
> What makes you think the labels of Pfizer, Lilly and Bayer
> on the US drugs are real? In fact there was a piece on
> (IIRC) 60 minutes where that was exactly the problem; the
> wholesaler was supplying counterfeit (in my sense) drugs
> with seemingly valid brand names to the pharmacies.

The difference is the FDA. No, you can never be 100% certain
of product integrity. And admittedly, the US distribution
system has problems. However, there is a very distinct paper
trail required. And, the number of instances of counterfeit
drugs in the US is extremely low, as compared to India and
as compared with internet sourced ex-US.

> > What makes you think Cipla and Ranbaxy are quality
> > manufacturers?
>
> Well known. See websites. The head of Cipla was
> interviewed in The New Yorker about his offer to supply
> (counterfeit in your sense) AIDS drugs to South Africa.
> Drugs are supplied in bubble packs with the Indian
> government's seal, not in baggies as is the case with the
> home-grown variety.

OK - so you base the standard an their ability to package in
nice looking containers drugs that they manufacture under
unknown conditions from API of unkown origin in violation of
international patents.....with the Indian governments stamp
of approval? And all this because you read it in a magazine?
And no URL to back it up?

> > What makes you so confident that what this website is
> > selling isn't fake?
>

Is this before or after you have an adverse drug reaction?

> >As far as I could tell - and I looked - Cipla does not
> >have a single approved NDA - not one. As such, the FDA
> >would not be required to inspect their manufacturing
> >facilities. They do have a thriving raw materials
> >capability but API approval is not the same as an
> >approved
> >DMF.
>
> The fact that you quote abbreviations such as NDA and API
> makes me think that you have more than a concerned amateur
> status in this discussion.

I actually know what I'm talking about.

> >Even if the company is as good as you say, there is no
> >evidence that the content of the package you receive
> >actually came from them. In the case of Indian
> >counterfeits, it is reasonable to think that imitating
> >the local market leader is a viable strategy to pursue.
> >If you were to receive a drug with a Cipra label, would
> >you recognize it as fake? What would you compare to?
>
> The real thing in its reaction. I wouldn't recognize a
> fake $20 bill either (without lots of work) but if the
> supermarket takes it, it's real.

If someone you didn't know handed you a white looking tablet
at a party and said it was aspirin and you had a headache,
would you take it?

If someone you knew by site handed you a bottle of pills
where the label said it was aspirin but you didn't recognize
the brand, would you take it?

If your best friend handed you a bottle of Bayer aspirin and
the pills inside had the Bayer logo, would you take it?

> >> >> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of
> >> >> the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for
> >> >> up-to-date info.
>
> >> >I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more
> >> >than opinion. I like the links better. But if you want
> >> >medical advice, sci.med has got to be better than
> >> >drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.
>
> >> Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is
> >> the pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when
> >> they're not arguing about autism or vaccination--just
> >> as you're expressing.
>
> >What you are likely to get are people who actually know
> >something about science and medicine.
>
> But who are unwilling to share their knowledge

I gave you the URLs - you do with the information what you
like.

> and/or have a very conservative view (i.e. they're good
> little drones) of treatment or they simply don't know very
> much about the particular condition.

I think using anabolic steroids for non-medical conditions
is foolish.

> Do you really think anon (to take an example) knows as
> much about steroid use as a biochemist working in the body
> builder area?

I have no idea who anon is.

> Or Howard as much as some guy suffering from ED and who
> has made the required investigation?

I would prefer talking to someone who actually has medical
training in

In another thread we had a lively discussion about Cialis
and "Dr" Maus from Germany provided a rendition of how it
constricts blood vessels. LOL

> For example there's an erroneous (or incomplete statement)
> in the drug contraindications for Cialis and Levitra but

> can tell us what it is.

You make an assumption that the three are identical
chemically, but they are not. The aproved product labels
reflect the clinical data at the time of submission which is
updated at 3 6 12 and every 12 months thereafter.

> Nope, the horror stories about the MD activity and lack of
> knowledge would boggle the mind.

Another strawman.

> >> The people on the body building groups are
> >> ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only
> >> have to worry about monetary loss but also that the
> >> drugs might be delivered by the DEA. It's extremely
> >> important to them that the source be reliable and
> >> discrete so you'll find long term posters (check
> >> google) with a good track record endorsing or
> >> condemning particular suppliers. Unlike sci.med it's a
> >> case of users helping other users.
>
> >You want medical advice from someone who is breaking the
> >law and misusing drugs? To each his own.
>
> I presume you've never smoked pot or hashish or used --god
> forbid--cocaine? And you doubtless wear a hard hat, and
> eye and ear protection when you open a can. Seat belt, air
> bag, full body harness, and roll bar--and keep it under 10
> mph when you drive a car. Is your real name Ned Flanders?

Strawman number 3.

> Most PCP's know squat about the two subjects we're
> discussing here.

The comparison was between sci.med and
alt.support.drugabuseonmusclebeach.

> The body builders can speak for themselves but for ED
> there's basic information on Mescape, information about
> the drugs on MedScape DrugInfo, Rx.com, Drugs.com, and
> cutting edge information on Medline. Anyone with a
> computer can know more than the average PCP in a couple
> of hours.

OK - now tell me a great sage and keeper of all that is ED.
I'm 67 years old, I have no history of heart disease other
than some nominal atrial arrhythmia. For this I take digoxin
and coumadin. And I have gout so when it flairs up I take
naproxyn and when I remember, I take Zyloprim. And then
again, my wife insists that I take propecia for that
hairline that little bald spot I seem to be developing.

So Doc, which of the 3 PDE5 should I take?

> >This is what you said - "Shoprxonline is reputable but
> >there are those that aren't." and you know this because
> >soemone on an NG told you so.
>
> >Here you go - this is one of this reputable company's
> >policies:
>
> >"In order to make your shopping experience hassle free,
> >our qualified on-staff physician will issue a
> >prescription for each order so we can legally fill and
> >ship your prescription."
>
> >This doesn't raise any questions about ethics in
> >your mind?
>
> Not at all. It simply says that we've got some stupid drug
> laws and Shoprxonline is assisting the buyer in
> circumventing them.

Circumventing laws to make a profit....ok.

> >And this:
>
> >"U.S. medicine names are for reference only. You are
> >purchasing equivalent medicines from India. The medicines
> >are made under strict regulations and often by the same
> >pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in the U.S.
> >such as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer and the
> >facilities are FDA approved."
>
> >Do you actually believe this is true? The part about them
> >being manufactured by big pharma and then labeled locally
> >and sold at pennies on the dollar?
>
> Many US companies drug companies manufacture or
> subcontract the manufacture of the base to other
> countries.

That's not what the statement says. It says you may be
getting the finished dosage form FROM big pharma. It doesn't
say that the APIs are sourced from the same third party.

> Let's see. In 2000 I priced bulk Sildenafil Citrate from
> China at $3,000 a key (minimum order). At the maximum
> dosage (100mg) that works

> ingredients and rent or buy a pill pressing machine or
> make an alcohol suspension (even cheaper) and you have a
> base cost of $0.50 for which Shoprxonline are asking $3.
> Big markup eh? But it pales into

> from drugstore.com at $8.66. And that's cheap. Some real
> bricks and mortar pharmacies are asking $13.00.

It explains how the price difference is possible.

Wasn't it you who tried baiting folks once before and were
summarily shot down. Are you trying for round two?

> competition in the pharmaceutical industry <g>) but,
> depending on the level of risk you want to take, "generic
> cialis" can be had for as low as 0.50 per 20mg (not Shoprxonline)--
> tablet or in alcohol suspension at around $1.00.

Like I said - it is an unapproved new drug and is illegal to
import into the US.

> >Or this: "All of our generic medicines are manufacturered
> >in FDA approved facilities and come in factory sealed
> >packaging with expiration dates."
>
> >> As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and
> >> its main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to
> >> ask about them is alt.support.impotence. The same
> >> attitude of mutual help prevails on that group.
>
> >Buying offshore over the internet, especially from India,
> >is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. I gave you a
> >dozen sources that provide evidence of the risk - from
> >FDA to BBC to the Indian government itself.
>
> >Are you really that cavalier to suggest that the risk is
> >worth the few dollars you might save? Health is about the
> >only thing you can't fix with money once you screw it up.
>
> Not a few dollars. Don't want to take any risks in life,
> fine, pay Pfizer or Lilly their extortionate mark up (save
> the arguments about R&D); if you're willing to take some
> risk you can save lots of money. And we went through why
> those Chicken Little URL's you quoted don't apply or are
> simply self-serving.

"We"? Good - when the Indian government is pushing through
legislation to invoke the death penalty for drug
counterfeiters, you call it chicken little.

Now, how about a URL that shows just how safe Indian
drugs are?

> >And then to argue that it's ok because you have a
> >weightlifter NG following that has identified the
> >good ones?
>
> >That's pretty dumb, in my opinion. But you are
> >entitled - go for it and become another example that
> >Darwin was right.
>
> Save the insults too.

Why? Are you one of those sensitive types?

js

InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message news:<r5i2509dornc1s2u1chbav242bo9c388be@4ax.com>...
> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
> >news:<uqsv40976hagvmcnispmasqkdjd9tn24to@4ax.com>...
> >> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >> >InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message
> >> >news:<m2it40ldn4nk8vo7p9a1i7d5ef1nudu3k6@4ax.com>...
> >> >> "HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"James E." <wer25@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:kWc3c.18371$rD5.8256@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> >> >> I noticed that prescription drugs, such as Cipro,
> >> >> >> Mevacor or Cialis, are available at 30% to 50% of
> >> >> >> the price in the US, if bought by mail order from
> >> >> >> India. The website looks just as reputable as
> >> >> >> most Canadian pharmaceutical websites.
>
> >> >> Shoprxonline is reputable but there are those that
> >> >> aren't.
>
> >> >They promote a generic Cialis. This is, by definition,
> >> >counterfeit. No one is licensed to make a generic
> >> >Cialis anywhere in the world.
>
> >> If that's what you regard as counterfeit, you're
> >> correct but pedantic.
>
> >So is the law.
>
> Before I reply to this I'd like you to answer a question:
> Are you employed or have you ever been employed by any US
> drug company or by any person or organization contracted
> to them or in any way representing them or by the FDA or
> by any law enforcement group or by any propaganda group
> for the US drug industry or are you or have you any
> relatives or yourself employed in or owning any US
> pharmacy or do you own any stock in any corporation that
> would be likely to benefit by the reduction in import of
> pharmaceuticals from outside the US?

I worked in a drug store when I was in high school.

> You sure sound like you do. Before you ask, personally I
> can answer no to the above unless one of the mutual funds
> of my 401K plans owns stock in a pharmaceutical company.
> Nor do I own or benefit in any way (other than as a
> consumer) from purchasing drugs from outside the US
> (e.g. by having an interest in Shoprxonline).

Makes you lilly white and unbiased? I argued the data. I
posted credible sources and provided links. Every statement
I made is supported by facts.

Now, you try the same. The implied "conflict of interest"
strawman is just that - a strawman. You can't argue the
facts so you go for the innuendo? Typical usenet.

> >> As you're well aware advertising Tadalafil or
> >> Sildenafil Citrate is likely to produce a big "Huh?"
> >> from the prospective purchaser so these companies (all
> >> of them) use the US brand names and add the word
> >> "generic". Last time I checked Lilly doesn't sell
> >> Cialis in capsule form either.
>
> >So it isn't Cialis at all then, is it. And as an
> >unapproved new drug, tadanafil-generic is illegal to
> >import to the US unless it is labeled as clinical
> >supplies under an active IND.
>
> Not illegal to purchase;

Illegal to import except under very strict conditions as I
pointed out. And that is specific to the importation for
experimental use under an active IND by a registered
manufacturer.

> illegal to sell. Big difference. No risk to the purchaser
> from legal action unless he resells or the drugs are
> scheduled substances.

Wrong.

What is it about some people that makes them think they know
everything?

Here is the FDA policy on importation of unapproved new
drugs: http://www.fda.gov/ora/import/pipinfo.htm

"The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(Act) (21 U.S.C. section 331) prohibits the interstate
shipment (which includes importation) of unapproved new
drugs. Thus, the importation of drugs that lack FDA
approval, whether for personal use or otherwise, violates
the Act. Unapproved new drugs are any drugs, including
foreign-made versions of U.S. approved drugs, that have
not been manufactured in accordance with and pursuant to
an FDA approval.

Cialis-generic sold by this Indian website is by definition
an unapproved new drug and it is illegal to import.

> Part of the reason you need to ask in the various groups
> is to determine what the supplier does if the goods are
> seized. Shoprxonline retries or refunds your money if the
> goods don't arrive. They guarantee delivery. (These people
> should pay me a commission)

So then - if the goods are confiscated yet it isn't illegal
to import, the agency that confiscates the package is guilty
of illegal search and seizure - they would have violated the
Fourth Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co-
nstitution.billofrights.html

> >> By "counterfeit" in connection with medication I (and I
> >> suspect most people) understand that instead of
> >> Tadalafil you'd be getting a capsule that contained no
> >> or insufficient active ingredient. Most of your URL's
> >> in fact use counterfeiting in this sense and those from
> >> India are certainly not referring to the products of
> >> Cipla or Ranbaxy.
>
> >I gave you plenty of evidence that the pharmaceutical
> >industry in India has a significant problem with
> >counterfeit drugs. What makes you think that the Cipla or
> >Ranbaxy labels are genuine?
>
> What makes you think the labels of Pfizer, Lilly and Bayer
> on the US drugs are real? In fact there was a piece on
> (IIRC) 60 minutes where that was exactly the problem; the
> wholesaler was supplying counterfeit (in my sense) drugs
> with seemingly valid brand names to the pharmacies.

The difference is the FDA. No, you can never be 100% certain
of product integrity. And admittedly, the US distribution
system has problems. However, there is a very distinct paper
trail required. And, the number of instances of counterfeit
drugs in the US is extremely low, as compared to India and
as compared with internet sourced ex-US.

> > What makes you think Cipla and Ranbaxy are quality
> > manufacturers?
>
> Well known. See websites. The head of Cipla was
> interviewed in The New Yorker about his offer to supply
> (counterfeit in your sense) AIDS drugs to South Africa.
> Drugs are supplied in bubble packs with the Indian
> government's seal, not in baggies as is the case with the
> home-grown variety.

OK - so you base the standard an their ability to package in
nice looking containers drugs that they manufacture under
unknown conditions from API of unkown origin in violation of
international patents.....with the Indian governments stamp
of approval? And all this because you read it in a magazine?
And no URL to back it up?

> > What makes you so confident that what this website is
> > selling isn't fake?
>

Is this before or after you have an adverse drug reaction?

> >As far as I could tell - and I looked - Cipla does not
> >have a single approved NDA - not one. As such, the FDA
> >would not be required to inspect their manufacturing
> >facilities. They do have a thriving raw materials
> >capability but API approval is not the same as an
> >approved
> >DMF.
>
> The fact that you quote abbreviations such as NDA and API
> makes me think that you have more than a concerned amateur
> status in this discussion.

I actually know what I'm talking about.

> >Even if the company is as good as you say, there is no
> >evidence that the content of the package you receive
> >actually came from them. In the case of Indian
> >counterfeits, it is reasonable to think that imitating
> >the local market leader is a viable strategy to pursue.
> >If you were to receive a drug with a Cipra label, would
> >you recognize it as fake? What would you compare to?
>
> The real thing in its reaction. I wouldn't recognize a
> fake $20 bill either (without lots of work) but if the
> supermarket takes it, it's real.

If someone you didn't know handed you a white looking tablet
at a party and said it was aspirin and you had a headache,
would you take it?

If someone you knew by site handed you a bottle of pills
where the label said it was aspirin but you didn't recognize
the brand, would you take it?

If your best friend handed you a bottle of Bayer aspirin and
the pills inside had the Bayer logo, would you take it?

> >> >> However asking in sci.med is hardly wise. Try one of
> >> >> the weightlifting groups or the impotence group for
> >> >> up-to-date info.
>
> >> >I don't think NGs are a good source of anything more
> >> >than opinion. I like the links better. But if you want
> >> >medical advice, sci.med has got to be better than
> >> >drugs.use.illegal.buffmeupp.
>
> >> Hmmm, don't think so. All you're likely to get here is
> >> the pure conservative voice of Big Pharma--that is when
> >> they're not arguing about autism or vaccination--just
> >> as you're expressing.
>
> >What you are likely to get are people who actually know
> >something about science and medicine.
>
> But who are unwilling to share their knowledge

I gave you the URLs - you do with the information what you
like.

> and/or have a very conservative view (i.e. they're good
> little drones) of treatment or they simply don't know very
> much about the particular condition.

I think using anabolic steroids for non-medical conditions
is foolish.

> Do you really think anon (to take an example) knows as
> much about steroid use as a biochemist working in the body
> builder area?

I have no idea who anon is.

> Or Howard as much as some guy suffering from ED and who
> has made the required investigation?

I would prefer talking to someone who actually has medical
training in

In another thread we had a lively discussion about Cialis
and "Dr" Maus from Germany provided a rendition of how it
constricts blood vessels. LOL

> For example there's an erroneous (or incomplete statement)
> in the drug contraindications for Cialis and Levitra but

> can tell us what it is.

You make an assumption that the three are identical
chemically, but they are not. The aproved product labels
reflect the clinical data at the time of submission which is
updated at 3 6 12 and every 12 months thereafter.

> Nope, the horror stories about the MD activity and lack of
> knowledge would boggle the mind.

Another strawman.

> >> The people on the body building groups are
> >> ordering/acquiring scheduled drugs so they not only
> >> have to worry about monetary loss but also that the
> >> drugs might be delivered by the DEA. It's extremely
> >> important to them that the source be reliable and
> >> discrete so you'll find long term posters (check
> >> google) with a good track record endorsing or
> >> condemning particular suppliers. Unlike sci.med it's a
> >> case of users helping other users.
>
> >You want medical advice from someone who is breaking the
> >law and misusing drugs? To each his own.
>
> I presume you've never smoked pot or hashish or used --god
> forbid--cocaine? And you doubtless wear a hard hat, and
> eye and ear protection when you open a can. Seat belt, air
> bag, full body harness, and roll bar--and keep it under 10
> mph when you drive a car. Is your real name Ned Flanders?

Strawman number 3.

> Most PCP's know squat about the two subjects we're
> discussing here.

The comparison was between sci.med and
alt.support.drugabuseonmusclebeach.

> The body builders can speak for themselves but for ED
> there's basic information on Mescape, information about
> the drugs on MedScape DrugInfo, Rx.com, Drugs.com, and
> cutting edge information on Medline. Anyone with a
> computer can know more than the average PCP in a couple
> of hours.

OK - now tell me a great sage and keeper of all that is ED.
I'm 67 years old, I have no history of heart disease other
than some nominal atrial arrhythmia. For this I take digoxin
and coumadin. And I have gout so when it flairs up I take
naproxyn and when I remember, I take Zyloprim. And then
again, my wife insists that I take propecia for that
hairline that little bald spot I seem to be developing.

So Doc, which of the 3 PDE5 should I take?

> >This is what you said - "Shoprxonline is reputable but
> >there are those that aren't." and you know this because
> >soemone on an NG told you so.
>
> >Here you go - this is one of this reputable company's
> >policies:
>
> >"In order to make your shopping experience hassle free,
> >our qualified on-staff physician will issue a
> >prescription for each order so we can legally fill and
> >ship your prescription."
>
> >This doesn't raise any questions about ethics in
> >your mind?
>
> Not at all. It simply says that we've got some stupid drug
> laws and Shoprxonline is assisting the buyer in
> circumventing them.

Circumventing laws to make a profit....ok.

> >And this:
>
> >"U.S. medicine names are for reference only. You are
> >purchasing equivalent medicines from India. The medicines
> >are made under strict regulations and often by the same
> >pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in the U.S.
> >such as Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer and the
> >facilities are FDA approved."
>
> >Do you actually believe this is true? The part about them
> >being manufactured by big pharma and then labeled locally
> >and sold at pennies on the dollar?
>
> Many US companies drug companies manufacture or
> subcontract the manufacture of the base to other
> countries.

That's not what the statement says. It says you may be
getting the finished dosage form FROM big pharma. It doesn't
say that the APIs are sourced from the same third party.

> Let's see. In 2000 I priced bulk Sildenafil Citrate from
> China at $3,000 a key (minimum order). At the maximum
> dosage (100mg) that works

> ingredients and rent or buy a pill pressing machine or
> make an alcohol suspension (even cheaper) and you have a
> base cost of $0.50 for which Shoprxonline are asking $3.
> Big markup eh? But it pales into

> from drugstore.com at $8.66. And that's cheap. Some real
> bricks and mortar pharmacies are asking $13.00.

It explains how the price difference is possible.

Wasn't it you who tried baiting folks once before and were
summarily shot down. Are you trying for round two?

> competition in the pharmaceutical industry <g>) but,
> depending on the level of risk you want to take, "generic
> cialis" can be had for as low as 0.50 per 20mg (not Shoprxonline)--
> tablet or in alcohol suspension at around $1.00.

Like I said - it is an unapproved new drug and is illegal to
import into the US.

> >Or this: "All of our generic medicines are manufacturered
> >in FDA approved facilities and come in factory sealed
> >packaging with expiration dates."
>
> >> As far as I know shoprxonline doesn't deal in scheduled drugs and
> >> its main items are the PDE5 supressors so the place to
> >> ask about them is alt.support.impotence. The same
> >> attitude of mutual help prevails on that group.
>
> >Buying offshore over the internet, especially from India,
> >is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. I gave you a
> >dozen sources that provide evidence of the risk - from
> >FDA to BBC to the Indian government itself.
>
> >Are you really that cavalier to suggest that the risk is
> >worth the few dollars you might save? Health is about the
> >only thing you can't fix with money once you screw it up.
>
> Not a few dollars. Don't want to take any risks in life,
> fine, pay Pfizer or Lilly their extortionate mark up (save
> the arguments about R&D); if you're willing to take some
> risk you can save lots of money. And we went through why
> those Chicken Little URL's you quoted don't apply or are
> simply self-serving.

"We"? Good - when the Indian government is pushing through
legislation to invoke the death penalty for drug
counterfeiters, you call it chicken little.

Now, how about a URL that shows just how safe Indian
drugs are?

> >And then to argue that it's ok because you have a
> >weightlifter NG following that has identified the
> >good ones?
>
> >That's pretty dumb, in my opinion. But you are
> >entitled - go for it and become another example that
> >Darwin was right.
>
> Save the insults too.

Why? Are you one of those sensitive types?

js

I'm not going to continue this forever; got other things to
do. Moreover after a while it becomes just a silly argument
centered around pedantic you said/I said exchanges and
definitions of words.

You think it's horribly risky to buy drugs from outside the
US with the primary argument that they might be counterfeit
in the sense of not containing the purported active
ingredients in the quantity advertised or even containing
harmful ingredients. I say the risk of this is low and well
worth taking given the large monetary savings.

I say sci.med is not the place to inquire about these sorts
of things due to the lack of information as to the "street
situation" of any particular supplier and the general
hostility towards anything like this. In addition in the
particular examples used (steroids and ED medication), I say
that the knowledge here is not as good as that found on
other NG's particularly body building and impotence
respectively. Despite the patent obviousness of both arms of
these contentions, you continue to maintain somehow that
sci.med supplies

latter of course is a joke, no?) to give cogent replies to
inquiries about these two subjects.

Well, good for you. Obviously we have widely differing
perspectives on life. Although I'm approximately your age I
have contempt for authority, am willing to take reasonable
risks, and relish the internet as a means of exercising that
personal freedom. Having read some of your past posting
history, I think my Ned Flanders comment was only inaccurate
in that Ned is presented as a nice guy.

Some minor additional comments:

Your sarcastic comments about "'Dr' Maus" threw me for a
moment. This didn't occur in sci.med but in sci.med.pharmacy
(not just another thread).

As to your request for a recommendation about which of the
three PDE5 suppressors to take why don't you ask all the
wonderful medical expertise on this group who must be just
itching to provide you with their in-depth knowledge of the
subject. I don't claim to be a physician. Anon does though.
He's currently dissecting the meaning of "board
certification" with other alleged physicians.

Personally if I were taking all those medications I'd think
twice about adding anything at all.

InquiringMind@earthnerd.net wrote in message news:<7sc550h224r5rmu8qhp74rqbbgrtfs5nd5@4ax.com>...
> I'm not going to continue this forever; got other things
> to do. Moreover after a while it becomes just a silly
> argument centered around pedantic you said/I said
> exchanges and definitions of words.

Fine with me - you're the one arguing perception and
opinion. Had you had an argument you would have used
data. Too bad.

> You think it's horribly risky to buy drugs from outside
> the US with the primary argument that they might be
> counterfeit in the sense of not containing the purported
> active ingredients in the quantity advertised or even
> containing harmful ingredients. I say the risk of this is
> low and well worth taking given the large monetary
> savings.

I said that India has a huge problem in their pharmaceutical
industry regarding knockoffs and showed you the extent of
it. When a government is considering legislation as
draconian as the death penalty for counterfeiting drugs -
that is a pretty serious problem.

> I say sci.med is not the place to inquire about these
> sorts of things due to the lack of information as to the
> "street situation" of any particular supplier and the
> general hostility towards anything like this.

Opinion. I pointed out that the posters her tend to be
better informed because they have an interest in science and
medicine, not just flat abs.

> In addition in the particular examples used (steroids and
> ED medication), I say that the knowledge here is not as
> good as that found on other NG's particularly body
> building and impotence respectively. Despite the patent
> obviousness of both arms of these contentions, you
> continue to maintain somehow that sci.med supplies

> latter of course is a joke, no?) to give cogent replies to
> inquiries about these two subjects.

Had you not cut my statement.

"I would prefer talking to someone who actually has medical
training in

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

> Well, good for you. Obviously we have widely differing
> perspectives on life. Although I'm approximately your age
> I have contempt for authority, am willing to take
> reasonable risks, and relish the internet as a means of
> exercising that personal freedom. Having read some of your
> past posting history, I think my Ned Flanders comment was
> only inaccurate in that Ned is presented as a nice guy.

Goody for you. You have every right to live your life in
ignorance. But when you post crap, I'll take the time and
post fact.

> Some minor additional comments:
>
> Your sarcastic comments about "'Dr' Maus" threw me for a
> moment. This didn't occur in sci.med but in
> sci.med.pharmacy (not just another thread).

He's an example of NG stupidity.

> As to your request for a recommendation about which of the
> three PDE5 suppressors to take why don't you ask all the
> wonderful medical expertise on this group who must be just
> itching to provide you with their in-depth knowledge of
> the subject. I don't claim to be a physician. Anon does
> though. He's currently dissecting the meaning of "board
> certification" with other alleged physicians.
>
> Personally if I were taking all those medications I'd
> think twice about adding anything at all.

How easy is it for you to make a recommendation about where
to source drugs. You don't even have a basic understanding
of the drugs but you are willing to tell me that buying them
from India is saf?

Another wonderful example.

You're done.

js