[email protected] wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >
[email protected] wrote in message
> >news:<
[email protected]>...
> >>
[email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >> >
[email protected] wrote in message
> >> >news:<
[email protected]>...
> >> >> "HCN" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"James E." <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >
news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> 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."
>
> >> AFAIK 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