Merck to stop supplying Canadian pharmacies that sell to U.S. customers

[Judi Lynn]

Merck to stop supplying Canadian pharmacies that sell to U.S. customers


By HOLLISTER H. HOVEY
Dow Jones Newswires

January 20, 2005, 4:57 PM EST

NEW YORK (Dow Jones/AP) _ Merck & Co. has decided to stop supplying its drugs to Canadian pharmacies that export the medicines to patients in the United States, the company confirmed Thursday.

Three times since June 2002, Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck had reminded all of its Canadian customers that the products it manufactures for use in Canada aren't meant for sale in the United States.

Drugs are generally cheaper in Canada because that country's government sets price controls, while the U.S. government does not.

The company on Jan. 14 sent the companies that had violated these terms a letter informing them that the company wouldn't be supplying them with products until they demonstrated to Merck's Canadian unit, Merck Frosst, that they are willing to comply, the company said.
(snip/...)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-bc-nj--merck-canada0120jan20,0,647437.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

[Bono71]

1. It was only a matter of time. n/t

[MockSwede]

2. Finally

'Bout time. If US would uphold reimportation laws, they wouldn't have to do this.

[leesa]

22. Ummm...the US Pharmaceuticals are ripping off Americans. Do you not

get it? They are charging prices that are 1000x higher than Canada charges for pure CEO/investor profit.

[MockSwede]

25. Get it right.

Generics in Canada generally cost more than here, when correcting for exchange rate.

Get out of this 1000X crap.

When is the last time a drug was patented in Canada? Do you know?

1966. Before the price fixing.

You want the 'blockbuster drugs' or do you want what we had in 1966?

The 'drugs from Canada' being sold to US citizens on the web are generally manufactured in India and Eastern Europe and South America and Cambodia. And the last study I read about 80% of them were adulterated.

Know what that means? Wrong stuff, wrong amount, stuff in there that is NOT supposed to be. Know what's in some of the stuff from China - cadmium, lead, arsenic. Trace amounts, but there.

So much for 'health'.

I suggest you talk to your family pharmacist for the details about this issue.

[burrowowl]

27. Even drugs sold by the major U$

pharmaceuticals in the U$ are manufactured abroad, like Mexico, etc. been so for as long as I can remember +40 years.

[MockSwede]

30. FDA certified

You misunderstand what 'reimportation' means. These are FDA certified production plants in foreign countries. So the medication, with chain of custody verified, runs from raw materials through processing, wholesaling, and the pharmacy and the patient.

NOT so for everything else. Most other countries in SE Asia and Eastern Europe and South America - and yes, I have about six to eight counterfeit cases in US and Europe and Canada - have major adulterated product/counterfeit drug issues.

Talk with your pharmacist to get details.

[Spazito]

38. Can you provide links to articles in the news that would validate...

your points regard adulterated product/counterfeit drug issues involving Canada? I am sure it would make for interesting reading.

Edited to add: Hmmm, it is 1/2 hour later and still no links, why am I not surprised.

[daleo]

43. You knew the "no drug patented in Canada since 1966" bit was B.S.

A giveaway of an anti-Medicare fabrication. For our U.S. readers, 1966 was the time the dark ages descended on Canada and we were forced to endure state supported public health care (according to right wingers).

I work at a Canadian university that is intensively involved in medical research, so I know this talking point is a canard.

[Career Prole]

112. Thanks!

You saved me the trouble of figuring out "why 1966?". Appreciate it!
:hi:

[MockSwede]

59. Turnaround time

Adulterated and counterfeit products are being sold as 'from Canada' on the internet and from storefront when they are actually being shipped from elsewhere - 80%, in fact.

Since you're up at all hours of the night and are impatient - I'll let you do your own research.

go to www.aphanet.org and search 'reimportation'.

[ldf]

93. storefronts? internet?

are you for real?

red herrings galore. what about the american citizens who go to canada to pharmacies?

are those drugs "adulterated", made in places other than the same places they are made for american pharmacies?

are you a paid hack for the pharmaceutical industry?

those good old americans drugs. just like the ones being yanked from the shelves as we speak.

but we can all rejoice. we can get our viagra and have 36 hour sex.

hooray!

all the pharmaceutical companies want are cash cows. or something they can pass off as a cash cow until it is withdrawn from the market due to "side affects" like, oh, maybe DEATH? by that time they have made so much money off of them they can easily pay off a few "settlements".

[MockSwede]

139. 24 hours

Actually, it's 24 hours for Viagra and 36 for Cialis.

Not 'adulterated' but MISBRANDED, which makes it illegal to sell or posess or dispense in US, if medication brought back from Canada is different markings, formulation, non-FDA approved, not same trademark name, etc.

and it's still illegal to return to US with medication from foreign country unless it's unavailable in US AND it's only a continuation of therapy started if foreign country. not usually enforced, but still this law.

Not a hack. But you can think I'm a hack just because I present viewpoints and material you refuse to consider due to preconceived notions.

much agreed that the drug companies are looking for cash cows. that's why I advocate folks request medication treatment with generically available options when the talk to their physicians.

[ldf]

157. WHAT??!!

canadian drugs, bought at canadian pharmacies, by americans are "MISBRANDED"?

care to provide a link for that?

and americans are going to canada to buy their drugs, why?

maybe because they have to make a decision, pay for their electicity, food, and rent, or pay for exhorbitantly priced "american" drugs from american pharmacies, so they can continue to fund the cash cows of the pharmaceutical industry.

why?

because of rules passed by the huge drug lobby influenced congress, so they will get huge donations for their re-election campaigns.

uh huh. yeah, right. that is a no brainer. i'd go to canada in a hearbeat.

and my preconceived notions are based on what? reality, maybe?

[MockSwede]

160. Move to Canada!

Or not.

Just trying to get some cogitation without abusive agitation.

Have a happy day.

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Federal_Government_Affairs&CONTENTID=2392&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Princess Turandot]

136. Let's leave out internet drug shopping for a moment..

Are you suggesting that Canadian pharmacists buy black-market meds to keep under the counter to sell to US senior citizens who show up at their counters via a bus trip from Maine? They do this while at the same time they purchase & dispense bonafide meds made by Merck to their own citizens? Canadian pharmacists have no ethics or lower ethics than US pharmacists?

[mahina]

174. mock something anyway...

WTO baby, this is bogosity.
I never saw a use for the WTO but here is an instance.
Plus the 'reimportation' argument presupposes that drugs are made here in the first place. Lots of meds I pay big bucks for at the pharmacy aren't made here anyway.

[NuttyFluffers]

61. still no links, but more 'facts' thrown all over this topic.

some of them interestingly contradictory (the friendly vioxx one was rather funny)

it's far later and they still aren't forthcoming... ;) why am i not surprised along with you? .... things that make you go hmm...

[MockSwede]

67. Such a rabble

Lots of mouths and few ears. So much for bothering to moderate and inform.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. why look a link!

oh, my bad. false alarm.

[Spazito]

80. ROFL, did you check his link!

APHA, the guys who get goodies, lots of goodies from the pharmacuticals to reccommend their products, hmmmm, it is more clear now why the determined intent to protect them.

Edited to correct error: said AMA, should have been American Pharmacists Association APHA

[MockSwede]

140. APhA

APhA and pharmaCISTs have nothing to do with PHARMA, pharmaceutical company trade group.

What do you THINK connection is that seems 'damning' in your squinky little eyes?

[Spazito]

143. Ohhh, insults....I'm hurt...NOT

It is in some peoples' best interests to support the position of the pharmaceutical companies, I believe they offer VERY generous incentives to ensure pharmacists recommend their products. I understand why pharmacists would have to attack the purchase of pharmaceuticals from Canada or other countries because of loss of income and would sympathize with that but your spurious and false attacks look more like what a a pharmaceutical sycophant would say than one who is in the occupation of a pharmacist.

You still have not included any credible news items validating your previous claims and the AP HA is not 'unbiased' in any way so that link is a non sequitur, imo.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spazito]

147. The article was in no way related to the dangers of purchases...

from Canada, it was about Merck's actions in retaliation for the sales of their product from Canada back to US citizens and your initial post did not address that in any way but it has been fun debating the red herrings with you.

With regard to the following:

"I'm not attacking the purchase of Canadian medication. I'm point out the problems with doing so."

Actually, you have been doing quite the opposite, you post "facts" without any credible and, as importantly, unbiased documentation to validate your claims hence my repeated requests for the above mentioned documentation, without success, I might add.

WRT your link to APHA, APHA is hardly an unbiased, neutral forum, it is strictly there to serve it's own interest and promote it's members which is totally appropriate but hardly an neutral site.

BTW, my daughter is studying to become a pharmacist in Canada and I am very proud of her and her chosen profession so my responses are not anti-pharmacist driven, they are solely in refutation of your initial posts total lack of factual information and the on-going request for NEUTRAL links to back up your claims relating to Canada.

As a last note, I DO appreciate your posts serving a good purpose in bumping up this thread so others can read what is an important issue, that of a US Drug corporation cutting off needed drugs from the poor, seniors, etc, in order to protect their profits which, in turn, highlight's the current US government's sell-out to the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists.

[MockSwede]

152. another link

if interested:
http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Federal_Government_Affairs&CONTENTID=2392&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Spazito]

161. Interesting Brief to Congress....

and, as it relates to the importation of drugs that cannot be certified as safe, I have no argument. However, it does NOT relate to the article that started the thread nor does it have any statistics that would back up the claims you made about Canada in your second post.

It is unfortunate that the brief didn't include a recommendation for lowering the cost for the poor, seniors, etc, so they would not have to go elsewhere in order to be able to afford their medication it only stated it was the cause for the cry for legalization of the importation of drugs. Lowering the cost of the drugs is the key issue in resolving the drug importation issue, imo, and, to do that, the US government needs to, first, get the lobbyists out of the "People's House" and, second, pass legislation that would actually serve the needs of the US public in the area of health care instead of passing legislation that simply put more money and power, not less, into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies.

In terms of internet purchases that have little oversight, I have no argument with the need for oversight and the concern voiced on both sides of the border that patients are able to purchase drugs without a doctor and a pharmacist overseeing the action. The Canadian government is watching this closely as well.

In closing, I go back to the issue raised by the article which was not the dangers of importation but rather Merck stopping sales to pharmacies in Canada that would sell to US citizens. Many US citizens come to Canada to purchase their needs directly from a Canadian pharmacy and not over the internet and these pharmacies are Merck's target simply because it hurts both their profit margin and raises the possibility that the hue and cry may force Congress in a direction that does not serve Merck's purpose nor that of any of the big pharmaceutical companies.

[NuttyFluffers]

172. dude, he may think us an unthinking ass, but he's only a one trick pony

please, you and i both read those 'precious links' of his and it still doesn't justify the spastic fearmongering he's been doing about canadian drugs. please, are canadians scrambling across the border, gasping and dying, because all their medicine are placebos? well, gee, if that tactic doesn't justify his madness he'll just topic shift onto the dangers of 'net purchases (duh, there's always a risk in 'net purchasing *anything*. as if usa and canada aren't interested in monitoring this...)

one source, and a source with vested interests at that, does not his argument justify. he can quote the APhA all day long, and even then the most those articles can whip up is suspicions. hell, a simple sampling of the drugs sold in canada vs. usa could easily clear up these fears, and that isn't remotely hard to do. but no... we all know what's the point of this little song and dance, and i ain't playin'.

[Spazito]

173. Yep, it's been fascinating watching the twisting and turning done...

the selective attacks and the continued lack of documentation for the pap that has been presented as fact. I did enjoy reading the brief to congress for what WASN'T in there, any solutions except to protect their own clients under the cover of caring about the patients but not to the point, heaven forbid, of demanding lower prices.

[genieroze]

153. HERE'S A LINK

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-07.htm

[genieroze]

154. Here Another link

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art25004.asp

[Occulus]

97. I went to your link and did an advanced search

for "canada contamination" (no quotes; searched for canada AND contamination per the results page) dating from 01/01/2000 to 01/21/2005 and ZERO RESULTS WERE FOUND.

Someone's in it for the money, which is why corporations in general dislike the internet. It lets us talk about them. But then, you would know that already, wouldn't you? ;)

[catgirl]

53. This is a US plant putting the breaks on

All because of profit. Why shouldn't someone be able to buy their drugs in Canada? My asthma medication, which I always need has TRIPLED in price (that's with health insurance, no less) since Chimpy became president. These companies are GREEDY. That's the bottom line.

[Igel]

94. Sorry; I blame insurance companies for some of the

price increases.

When I was uninsured I went to a doctor and got a prescription filled.

Later, I was insured, and went through the same routine.

I was charged almost twice what the co-pay/insurance company payment totalled to. The prescription I paid completely out of pocket was more than twice what the pharmacy got from the me/insurance company.

Discount one set of customers + aim for same bottom line = raise prices for another set.

Edited to add: And before I get buried, not the word "some". A fair amount *is* because of the drug companies. (And a lot is because they have to prescribe new drugs that on average work only slightly better than old drugs, which is to say, a lot better for a few people, and no better at all for most.)

[NCN007]

116. How are drug companies going to fund research and development

Without revenue? We are currently headed towards a crisis with the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria like MERSA. And I'm sorry, but the government does not have the resources to develop new drugs on the scale that they are needed. What about AIDS and cancer? Who is going to pay for the research that is eventually going to make these problems things of the past?

The answer: You. Price fixing would kill our drug industry and seriously slow the advance of medical science.

[PA Democrat]

120. Maybe they could cut their obscene advertising/ marketing budget?

Pharmaceutical companies spend TWICE the total of their R&D budget on advertising and marketing. Did you know that almost HALF of the R&D into new drugs is funded by the federal and state governments and by private non-profits? And check out how the drug companies spend their R&D money: on copycat drugs, on ways to minutely alter current drugs to acquire new patents, on the host of Viagra and Viagra copycat drugs, baldness remedies, etc.


"The federal government and the private sector both make important contributions to medical research, but there are some differences in focus. The federal government is more likely to spend its research dollars on severe illnesses, vaccines, basic research and innovative therapies. The private sector is more likely to invest in "me too" drugs that compete with similar drugs in a therapeutic class, drugs for non essential medicines, like baldness remedies, chronic illnesses, and marketing related research. Of course, these are relative differences, and one observes R&D investments from both the public and the private sector in many important areas, such as cancer and AIDS research."

April 5, 1998, Alice Dembner and the Boston Globe Spotlight Team, published a report titled "Public handouts enrich drug makers, scientists," which said:

"The Globe looked at 50 top-selling drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration over the past five years: 35 new drugs, which are bestsellers among those the FDA deemed most important or most unique, and 15 "orphan" drugs targeting rare diseases. Thirty-three of the 35 new drugs and 12 of the 15 orphans received money from the National Institutes of Health or the FDA to help in discovery, development, or testing."

http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/rp-faq.html

[Princess Turandot]

137. While sitting in my MD's waiting room last year..

I got drawn into a conversation with another person sitting there who turned out to be a drug rep. Nice woman, although I did feel she was being overly generous in sharing with me that she was going for a 'bikini wax' later that day, in preparation for a vacation trip lol.

Shortly thereafter, I heard her invite 3 of the MDs support people out to dinner at an expensive NYC steak joint. Her expense tab for that was probably at least 2 1/2 times what my MD got paid for my visit, altho I confess that my visit, unlike one to the steakhouse, did not include a tasty side offering of creamed spinach and hash browns.

[MockSwede]

144. Gratuities

Pharmaceutical reps may have DAILY expense account for physician detailing that is likely 2-1/2 times MD fee you mention.

Nice how prescribers learn about medications from sales representatives ONLY. Not in med school.

So the guys and girls driving the medication bus know nothing about the cost of the tires or gas (medication costs) or if or how the passengers (patients) are able to pay for their choice of the road or distance traveled (insurance coverage).

Further, they are given free gas and tires (medication samples) to hand out to any patient bitching about office visit delay or cost OR to give to family members or office employees. But it's the local pharmacies and their patients who actually pay for these freebies, since the wholesale prices paid by the pharmacy are inflated enough by the pharmaceutical company to cover all the free samples. But, 30-80% of them do go wasted.

Ever wondered about the storage conditions of and the effect on freebie medications dragged around by reps in the trunks of their cars in Maine in -20 Winter weather or in Texas in 105 Summer weather? When the containers say "Store at controlled room temperature 15 - 30 C (59 - 86 F)"??? How about those delivered to your mailbox with same temperatures???

[Northern Perspective]

163. Adjunct to that

are all the subsidies government (federal and state) provides to biotech and pharma companies in creating dedicated business "corridors", as well as direct support of university research facilties, etc., in addition to tax incentives to corporations for business development and so on.

"Pharma" is very well looked after - especially by THIS White House.

And why ARE they spending so much in television advertising for prescription drugs?

[PA Democrat]

167. Wonder if there is a direct link between the advertising $'s spent and cost

of drugs prescribed? I had read something to that effect recently, but can't recall where. It said that a lot of the advertising was geared at pushing newer more expensive, but not necessarily more effective drugs to consumers. The ads also create a market for baldness and erectile dysfunction drugs. I love that commercial with the younger woman with the sexy voice talking about how hot her man is since he tried cialis, or whatever. Gag!

BTW, welcome to DU Northern Perspective!

[Igel]

125. I think they need revenue.

I'm not against profits. No profits, no companies; no companies, and we produce new drugs at a pitiful rate. Also, no profits, no new investment. And no profits, no dividends--and my hunch is most drug company dividends go to pension funds.

No, I dislike the idea that insurance companies distort the market-place as much as they do. It's just market forces, I guess, but the idea of one collective having enough power to get really, really steep discounts that have to be made up by charging much higher prices to those without a powerful collective voice behind them, just rankles me greatly.

[natrat]

127. i agree to an extent

drug company profits are maybe30% a year lately compared to 1.9% or whatever for the average US company. And I think, and may be wrong,that drug company profits have been rising and further the ratio of profit to research is falling.

[MockSwede]

145. Crux of the issue

Well said summary of the issue. Both with respect to companies and profits and with respect to skew of cost from market volume discount to 'little company' aka the family or individual.

That's why I'm surprised unionization is at such a low ebb in US. It is only through large numbers banding together that we can hope to balance collected power of 'large corporation', especially when many of them are larger than states or countries!

Also why 'collective' or socialized insurance, where everyone - young and old, veteran and Medicare, small company employee, large corporation employee - all belonging to same insurance pool, is the fairest way of utilizing healthcare insurance.

Would greatly simplify the costs of administering plan (25 TO 45% on top of beneficiary costs) (only one for each state, maybe) and eliminate the 30% of healthcare costs directly or indirectly attrributable to 'filling out and figuring out' all the 1000s of plans that various patients present to a healthcare giver!

[catgirl]

128. The amount we've spent on wars could certainly fund research

$40,000,000 inaugurations could buy lots of drugs for the
uninsured. The pharm. industry is a disgrace.

[Igel]

131. But it wouldn't fund research.

If you want me to fantasize about how things should be, I'm game.

There's a lot to criticize with drug companies, but there's got to be a reason that India and China are reverse engineering American drugs, not vice-versa, and in the USSR people wound up finding mules for getting American drugs smuggled in, but there wasn't a great demand for Soviet drugs in New York.

It's bad that people can't afford the latest drugs (which in most cases they actually don't need, but that's another rant), but I'm unconvinced there's a realistic option that doesn't screw over someone; I started this by complaining that the insurance companies arrange things so the uninsured are screwed. At least I haven't heard a solution that doesn't eventually run aground the logical shoals or the historical record.

If drug profits zeroed out, I'd hate to think of how many pension funds would take an Enron-like hit.

[PA Democrat]

132. You give the drug companies more credit than they deserve

Most new drugs are developed based upon research funded by TAXPAYERS.

April 5, 1998, Alice Dembner and the Boston Globe Spotlight Team, published a report titled "Public handouts enrich drug makers, scientists," which said:

"The Globe looked at 50 top-selling drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration over the past five years: 35 new drugs, which are bestsellers among those the FDA deemed most important or most unique, and 15 "orphan" drugs targeting rare diseases. Thirty-three of the 35 new drugs and 12 of the 15 orphans received money from the National Institutes of Health or the FDA to help in discovery, development, or testing."

http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/rp-faq.html

[ArchTeryx]

166. The R&D shibboleth

Actually, alot of the research and development they get is a free ride. They get it from the university system and "basic" (that is, for general knowledge, rather then going after a specific product) research in the NIH. Not to mention the vast majority of new drugs now coming on the market are 'copycat' or 'me too' drugs which vary from existing drugs only by minor features.

And they're doing their level-headed best to adulterate the NIH with their payouts and bribes, too. There are so many conflicts of interest with senior scientists there, I am having second thoughts about trying to enter it. (I'm a virology PhD grad student).

It's true that if ANYTHING threatened their profits even SLIGHTLY, R&D is the first thing they'd slash. And they try to prevent the need for R&D in the first place by extending monopoly patents as long as they can.

But it's ultimately a self-defeating strategy.

-- ArchTeryx

[whosinpower]

168. Sorry but

Currently, drug companies spend far far FAR more money on advertising and marketing than research and development. We are inundated with their advertisements every day, every hour for every little thing.

[Stockholm]

58. Counterfeit drugs is one thing ...

But what is wrong about selling US manufactured drugs to US citizens from Canada?

The idea of parallel importing is a big driver towards greater competition in Europe, perhaps the most famous example is the Commissions bi-annually list of car prices in the various EU countries in Euro. The car industry of course have tried every trick in the book but what it boils down to is really:

What makes the US FDA so great compared to the Canadian equivalent?

IMHO It is all a hoax to screw the US consumers. And it won´t stop until the market forces evens things out.

[MockSwede]

60. Market Force

Check out what the 'market forces' offer for product quality when manufactured in Cambodia and sold as 'made in Canada'

How is the medication consumer going to know where it's come from and whether it's been recalled or if it's been stored correctly, etc?

It's all chain of custody - a system that works only if the system is closed.

[Stockholm]

82. Yes

I agree with you concerning counterfeit drugs, I do. But it should be up to the consumer to decide for himself. If he/she trusts the Canadian governments version of the FDA then consumers should be able to buy their drugs from Canada. I have never bought drugs in Canada but Canada does not strike me as neither consumer hostile nor particularly unsafe compared to other nations.

Also the US drugs mentioned in the article seems manufactured in the US, exported to Canada and then sold back to the US. They are the same drugs you buy at your local US pharmacy - maybe even from the same shipment from the producer.

I don´t know, I just get a feeling of déjà vecu since I have seen and heard this arguments before in Europe by automakers etc. saying the same thing in all countries:

- You don´t want to undermine consumer safety or the uniquely strong consumer laws of Sweden by allowing your citizens to purchase cars (jeans, food products or what have you) from jurisdictions with weaker regulations or guarantees than you. Protect your citizens by banning parallel imports.

IMHO it is just corporate bs, clever though playing on national pride and fears but still just good old bs.

/What does your handle mean BTW?

[mike_c]

87. you're trying to misdirect this discussion....

The OP was about Merck shutting off the flow of their drugs, which you applauded as somehow assisting against the importation of counterfeit pharmceuticals. Now, unless Merck is counterfeiting or otherwise supplying substandard products to Canada, their action can only have precisely the opposite effect, i.e. reducing the proportion of genuine FDA approved drugs or their equivalents imported through Canadian pharmacies. You can't have it both ways.

We both know that Merck's action was wholly about maintaining sky high profit margins on drugs marketed in the U.S. It's especially telling that they have apparently decided that the reduction in Canadian sales resulting from this action will be offset by maintaining a subset of those sales-- and probably a minor subset-- through U.S. pharmacies to U.S. customers.

[jayfish]

91. Beat Me To It.

Probably said it a-bit better then I would have too. Well done.

Jay

[daleo]

104. Yes, that is an excellent point - good eye. n/t

[Career Prole]

109. "These are FDA certified production plants in foreign countries"

Big deal.

U.S. Knew Last Year of Flu Vaccine Plant's Woes

The Food and Drug Administration found serious problems of bacterial contamination at an influenza vaccine plant in England in 2003, 16 months before British regulators effectively closed the site and impounded its flu shots because of fears they were tainted.
<snip>
The documents, which include FDA inspection reports, letters and e-mails, also revealed that the agency was nine months late in giving Chiron Corp., the owner of the plant, a detailed report of the problems it found and then rebuffed the company's efforts to learn more about what it could do to fix things. At the same time, FDA managers overruled its inspection team and made its fixes voluntary rather than mandatory.

The new information appears to undercut the agency's assertions that it had no reason to suspect that past safety problems at the plant had persisted and might threaten its huge production capacity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58482-2004Nov17.html

[Spazito]

28. This is total crap!!!

Geez, one would think you only listen to Rush or O'Rielly because only they would spew such crap with such abandon! Please provide links for your 'data'.

[MockSwede]

70. Search yourself

amazing how folks are so quick to denounce with negative associations - just like a Repuke would do - like R or O'R - when they hear things they don't want to hear/believe.

I'll not waste your time or mine.

so do your own information search - i've been involved in this issue for over 15 years - nothing I could have learned in that time, I'm sure.

[jasop]

42. The Propaganda Broke You

[laundry_queen]

49. Sure you could fit more

misinformation into that post? Links please? Data?
80%? puleeze! :crazy:
Yeah I'll go talk to the family pharmacist on whether I should purchase drugs online and not from him/her. Gee, wonder what they would say. :shrug:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms_Mary]

75. I see only insults coming from you, no actual information.

[0007]

62. Please provide links to back your statements.

[PA Democrat]

88. Yes, I want "blockbuster drugs"

But, to imply that the development of those drugs would be threatened by re importation of Canadian drugs is pure bullshit.

Almost half of all research into new drugs is funded by the government or private non-profit groups. Yes, the pharmaceutical industry puts a lot of money into R&D, but a lot of that money is for copycat "me too" drugs, that sadly do not result in competitive pricing.

And then consider the money spent on the development of Nexium, when the patent for Prilosec had expired. Nexium is no more effective than Prilosec, and is actually molecularly identical to Prilosec except for the fact that the inert half of the molecule has been eliminated.

Read all about the real story on pharmaceutical R&D in The $800 Million Pill: The Truth behind the Cost of New Drugs by Merrill Goozner.

You can read a chapter of the book here:
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10083/10083.ch08.html

[Occulus]

95. Do US tax dollars pay for some of the research into these drugs?

Why, I believe they do.

Explain to us again why profiting from this research in such an obscene way is a good thing. We're all ears.

[yurbud]

126. you use our money for research...

We get to set price on resulting products.

That's not socialism--that's return on investment.

[PA Democrat]

142. No it's more like corporate welfare

Of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US, the vast majority were developed based upon research using TAXPAYER DOLLARS. That's not "return on investment" that's corporate welfare.

See my earlier post for details:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1168804&mesg_id=1172605

[peaches2003]

107. Did One Better

I talked with all my doctors and with my son who is a doctor and they ALL say to buy in Canada for the savings.

Pharmacists have a financial interest in badmouthing drugs from Canada; docs don't.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

121. exactly right because of medical ethics

there's this thing called the "Hippocratic Oath" which would prevent a doctor from prescribing something they knew was not 100%.

[MockSwede]

148. 100% - NOT

There's no way a physician has ANY clue that a patient is getting the right medication - probably on the pharmacists dispensing the medication purchased from a US wholesaler and in turn directly from manufacturer would be able to sleuth this out.

Hippo doesn't stop anything. Seen any MD brought on 'hippo charges'?!

No. Just malpractice and state board rules and state laws and federal laws and failing to perform up to practice standards. That's where the oversight lies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

177. So Merck is saying

their own drugs can't be reimported because they aren't safe? They are safe enough for Canadians but not for us??

Your argument doesn't fit this story.

[youngdem]

23. This is so wrong!!

They don't have to do anything! I think it is a travesty that our citizens, some below the federal poverty guidelines have to pay insanely high prices for medications that are desperately needed. Many of these people do not qualify for Medicaid/Medicare or other forms of assistance. Instead they have to do without other necessities of life and scrape together enough money to pay for their medications.

Boycott!!!

[KansDem]

101. While I admire you youthful enthusiasm...

"Boycotting" life-preserving drugs is not exactly the way I would protest. I must take 6 to 8 prescription drugs daily for diabetes and heart condition. If I stop doing this, it could very well affect my health negatively.

But I do admire your enthusiasm!

[ally_sc]

66. they took a huge blow from vioxx...

i stopped taking vioxx the minute they eluded to the fact that it could cause high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes...the fda did certainly not research that drug enough.

[eleonora]

3. the US gov doesn't set prices

because the US government sucks. Everything is profit minded, at the cost of our health.

[MockSwede]

4. Capitalism

Hey, that's capitalism. The good and the bad. Cars tires and drugs are the same. Profits for every product/service produced. Me, I prefer socialism.

[DieboldMustDie]

10. Importing car tires from Canada is illegal?

That's news to me. :shrug:

[GiovanniC]

86. Car Tires Treat Life-Threatening and Debilitating Illnesses?

That's also news to me.

Here's the bottom line... some people are extremely sick and need drugs to live. Drug companies are charging exorbitant prices for these drugs in an effort to see their profit margins soar. Millions cannot afford the drugs their medical conditions require. They live in agony or even die, or they give up essential needs to buy their medications (opportunity cost).

When it comes to a pair of sneakers, or a BMW, or plasma television... let capitalism work. Let supply and demand determine the prices. Fine.

But when it comes to life-saving medications, this cannot be our policy. We literally cannot live with a policy that says that you are only worthy to survive if you have enough money to afford outrageously priced drugs. That is the cruelist form of social Darwinism and it shouldn't be tolerated. One way or another, we need to ensure that everyone who has a need for doctor-prescribed pharmaceuticals has access to them regardless of their income.

[DemoTex]

18. Nationalize the airlines and the drug companies.

Oh, and big oil. Then back-off. Watch the rest clean up their acts like whore's finding Jesus.

[MockSwede]

26. Yep

Nationalize everything while we're at it.

OR.

Universal health insurance. 50 policies for each of the states - run as a Medicaid pool. EVERYONE is in and pays taxes based on income. No small company being charged huge premiums. No self insured. A great equalizer in a capitalist environment, especially with respect to other countries. All of the industrialized countries, except US, run it this was. ONE insurance pool. Don't worry about trying to complain to an insurance executive, because you can call your state rep or senator. Really insurance - social security - for all of us. Regardless of age or income or employer size or length of time employed, etc.

But try to pry health care insurance from 'not for profit' and for profit commercial insurance companies hands! Remember when the Clintons tried health care reform. The insurance industry spent $100 million to shoot it down.

[eridani]

51. Because the Clintons were corporado whores who left private insurance

in the game, to be subsidized by huge influxes of public money, and STILL not everyone would have been covered.

[MockSwede]

68. Whoring around

I guess we're all corporate whores. Of course it's going to be public money - what the heck do you think Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare are?!

You try getting private insurance companies out of healthcare insurance 100% all at once. Would have been like pulling someone's head out of their arse - one hell of a shit-hemorrhage. Possibly fatal - definitely extremely messy.

[eridani]

135. The problem is we can't AFFORD to have private insurers involved--

--as their very existence is for the purpose of stealing as much money from the health care financial pool without actually providing health care as possible. We don't have the public money to do that.

It's like you are sitting in a bathtub with both faucets going full blast, and the water level is still going down. I've said the equivalent of "Gee, why don't you put the plug in?" and you've said the equivalent of "Move along, nothing to see here, we'll just have to get more water from the tap somehow."

[jasop]

44. Socialism means ....

society is important... capitalism means that only money and power is important.

[MockSwede]

72. Correct

So either get medication socialized or stop complaining about the profits in the capitalist society that * is so bent on increasing in the US.

[catgirl]

54. The good and the back (shrug)?

Oh well. I guess that's the way it goes. I'll just lay
down and let these a**holes stomp on me.

[Megahurtz]

5. That's for sure

more money and power to the corporations who contributed to der furher.

[Anakin Skywalker]

13. You Said it, Sister!

"Maximum Profit", one of the slogans of a neo-con admin.

[Career Prole]

6. Wow...what happened to that "global market-free trade" crap

corporations are so fond of?

[Hobarticus]

8. Silly...that's for suckers!

Fair trade is what they talk about in press conferences!

[prolesunited]

14. That only applies

when it benefits them. If you think *anything* that benefits us would be allowed to stand, you're mistaken.

[MockSwede]

29. Free Trade

Check out the quality of the made-in-Cambodia and sold as 'Canadian' drugs! NO FDA oversight in Cambodia - the gold standard in pharmaceutical quality, notwithstanding its flaws.

I'm not selling medications that I cannot be assured are actually what they are supposed to be.

Maybe you want the choice? Lipitor for $80/month made in the US and vouched by the FDA or 'atorvastatin' from Cambodia (80% of which is counterfeit) for $20/month.

You want to make that choice? Or maybe leave it to your pharmacist? Who's liable when something bad happens while using the medication? YOU, if you buy the cut-rate crap. Spin the roulette wheel?

You'll really want to find your family pharmacist during a quiet moment (Rare) and ask what he/she knows about this issue.

[reprobate]

36. You could not possibly be defending the FDA, could you?

The FDA? The same FDA that approved vioxx? The same FDA that approved vioxx that killed what...20,000? 50,000? And they KNEW about it but refused to pull it off the market?

Oh, come now, MS...surely you are not defending Merck, are you. The same Merck that knew their product would kill huge amounts of people, but thought their profits far outweighed the lives of those unknown and unseen individuals? After all, they are just statistics, right?

Personally, I consider myself fortunate. My cardiologist put me on vioxx for arthritis. Fortunately he warned me that if I started to feel a cough to stop taking it IMMEDIATELY. I took his advice and am alive today. Apparently according to you I should have kept taking it, and I would not be here to argue with you.

How can you defend these killers? A rational nation would have both the management of Merck and the heads of the related depts. at FDA indicted for mass murder.

Certainly does show just how far wrong uncontrolled capitalism has gone.

An unknown philosopher once said: Living with corporations is like swimming with sharks. You want to keep an eye on them, and be able to kill them when they turn on you.

Seems like good advice to me.

[0007]

64. I was just going to broach the subject of Vioxx and Merch and the FDA

I indeed find it interesting that junior is pushing tort reform while Merch & Co. is now saying that Canada is out of the pool. And the FDA is telling the American people how well protected they are by this administration.

[Ms_Mary]

76. The very same FDA, it appears. Gold standard...LMAO.

[Igel]

96. A lot of drugs were fast-tracked.

But let's remember why fast-tracking was approved, and who it was jumped up and down and screamed until they got it.

Kicking somebody until they scream "shit!" and then washing their mouth out with soap because they screamed it just doesn't sound quite fair to me.

[Spazito]

98. Fast-tracking was approved because the pharmacutical corporations...

paid big lobbying dollars to have it so and they did get their money's worth, didn't they!

[Igel]

100. Anti-AIDs drugs were taking 8+ years

to go from beginning trials to market.

AIDS sufferers didn't have that long to wait.

Sorry, my cynicism hasn't woken up yet today.

I have no doubt that big corporations wanted fast-tracking. They have limited life to their patents, and want to make what they can before the patent expires.

But the fast-tracking press and agitating that I remember most (maybe because that's what grabbed the headlines) dealt with organizations wanting miracle drugs for AIDS. Some other disease-specific organizations were probably in on the act, too.

The FDA held off on fast-tracking for what seems like a long time, precisely because they relied on large-scale multi-year clinical trials to ascertain a drug's safety. Now we still have large-scale, multi-year clinical trials, but it's called "therapy."

Maybe behind the scenes the corporations were just manipulating AIDS activists, or just took advantage of a confluence of interests. But I still believe without the agitation, fast-tracking wouldn't have happened.

[Spazito]

106. The pharmacuticals want to cut the time of testing before approval...

to cut their costs, period. It is profits and profits only that drive their wish to fast-track approval. If they truly cared that persons with AIDS receive treatment, surely they would not charge the obscene prices they do, right?

[Igel]

117. Partly right.

I'm just going on what I remember the media, politicians, and activists shown on tv saying at the time. Oh, and the FDA.

I remember too many AIDS activists and other folk complaining about people dying while the FDA required tests. I guess they were paid off or impersonated. ACTUP should be pissed.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010709&s=kim
ACT UP--the grassroots organization that shut down the New York Stock Exchange and picketed St. Patrick's Cathedral--is back, and it's gone global. Over a decade ago, ACT UP (AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power) pioneered many of the direct action tactics currently used by antiglobalization protesters, including activist video, corporate- and government-office takeovers, and high-profile media demonstrations. Today, ACT UP signs at demonstrations bearing such slogans as Stop Medical Apartheid: From Botswana to the Bronx are reminiscent of earlier protests calling for development and fast-track approval of AIDS medications. ...

Also check http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0106/voices_thornberry.htm

Russian proverb: The devil's not as black as people paint him.

[PA Democrat]

118. Data showing that drugs had lethal side effects was

intentionally withheld by drug manufacturers. Your analogy trivializes the resulting unnecessary deaths.

[Igel]

122. But I think that the

longer, more comprehensive trials required previously would have made the undesirable side effects (some lethal, some debilitating) obvious.

I'm not disputing that bad side effects weren't covered up, and that fast-tracking was in the drug companies' interests, not the consumers'. It's possible for an event to have two independent, mutually reinforcing causes. But I think fast-tracking made it easier to cover up, and partially muzzled the FDA.

Many of the AIDS drugs fast-tracked were hailed as panaceas. Some wound up being prescribed much less often when their side effects and inefficacy became apparent.

I'd like fast-tracking revoked, but I'm not sure that it's the most rational thing (I mean, I'd have to consider how many people were harmed by fast-tracked drugs as well as how many were saved by them). I want to know the risks of any drug I take or apply to my person. I'd like to hear the defects of drugs pointed out rationally, but understand that some of the studies should be dealt with confidentially because "rational" treatment in the US is also improbable. Far too often we hear sensationalized versions of the defects of drugs, Americans as group can't understand things like "this drug causes a 2% increase in heart attacks, but it is still a valid treatment." It just sounds like a non-sequitur.

[PA Democrat]

138. So where was the public outcry to have Vioxx & Celebrex fast-tracked?

I won't die from my arthritis even though it can be painful. How can you justify withholding information from the public over the potentially lethal side effects for a drug that treats a non-fatal disease? Don't I have the right to know what the trade-offs are?

There is NO excuse. Let's be honest. It is pure unadulterated GREED at work here.

[PA Democrat]

119. And those FDA experts approving drugs have HUGE conflicts of interest

"More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found.

These experts are hired to advise the Food and Drug Administration on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed.

The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug."

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm

[catgirl]

55. Oh like we can trust the FDA...NOT.

[MockSwede]

63. FDA Trust

You have a problem with the FDA? Not me. I like having a government agency looking out for my health.

Are you so negative on everything government?

[Ms_Mary]

77. You don't know very much about the FDA, do you?

[jayfish]

92. Waddaya Talking About,...

he/she has "been involved in this issue for over 15 years". :eyes:

Jay

[Ms_Mary]

102. Hence the vaugeness of his/her posts...call me skeptical.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

83. you are either incredibly naive or on the take

my husband is just about dead from advanced diabetes, now with rectal cancer as a result of lack of proper digestive flow, pacreatitis, hyperglycemia--you name it--because he took FDA-APPROVED Zyprexa for about 6 years, which it now turns out is strongly linked to diabetes, which of course Eli Lilly failed to mention (& it turns out--surprise, surprise! NOT--they were well aware of diabetic symptoms in the clinical trials--there have now been at least 25 deaths directly related to taking this drug, and hundreds if not thousands of people with diabetes who never had it before--husb never had symptoms until about a year ago and it advanced quickly--doctors had not even been advised about the connection so no one put 2+2 together, Zypexa = diabetes. Hopefully we will get something from the class action suit that is being put together, but he may not even live long enough for that settlement.

You can take your FDA payola and shove it up your #%&%

apologists for any aspect of this administration belong on the "other" board.

[MockSwede]

155. Bad news

Please continue to take care of your husband and good luck.

No FDA payola here - sorry about that.

Never an apoligist. But very interesting that some folks get so 'mad-dog nasty' and abusive to strangers who present a different viewpoint.

Realizing that this is all percentages and it's 100% when it's you or a loved one that's affected negatively, any thoughts about how many people have been helped with this medication?

Where is your #%&%? What would be insulting?

So much for DU civility, myself included.

[jayfish]

170. UNBELIEVABLE!

Your very first post in this thread was of a combative "mad-dog nasty' nature and you have the nerve to come back and deride DU'ers for responding in kind. Give me a fucking break. Then when folks asked you to backup your statements with FACTS, instead of taking a time to cool off and dig up the info, you got nastier. You are a piece of work and you deserve no civility from any of the GOOD people on this board.

Jay

[catgirl]

130. You wanna buy my Serevent off of me?

cause I sure as hell won't use it now. Your respectful FDA
was aware that people were dropping dead because of it.
Some victims were even found still clutching their
inhalers in their hands. Don't preach to me about the
corrupt FDA. I guess it will take one of your loved ones
to die because the FDA gets paid off by the pharma.
companies and who knows who else.

Edit: grammar

[MockSwede]

156. Asthmatic

I'm still need only albuterol, thank you, anyway.

I'm not preaching, but you're screeching.

You know how many people die of asthma attacks, with or without, medication?

Too many, despite medication use.

Other than filing fees for NDA or ANDA, what information do you have that shows pharmaceutical companies make payments to FDA?

[PA Democrat]

164. Should FDA's experts who review drug safety be on pharma's payroll?

Because the majority are:

"More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found.

These experts are hired to advise the Food and Drug Administration on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed.

The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug."

http://www.dontevergiveup.com/usa_2000.htm

Updated hyperlink to article

[mahina]

175. my grandma

:cry:

[PA Democrat]

81. And we are so well-protected by the FDA now?

Hmmmm.....Does the flu vaccine fiasco ring any bells? If I recall, it was the British government that rang the alarm bell on the safety issues with the vaccine manufacturer, not our FDA.

I hate to break the news to you, but there are many drugs sold
here in the US that are being manufactured overseas. And the FDA inspects those factories only once every two years.

"Pfizer, the No. 1 pharmaceutical, makes most of its cholesterol fighter Lipitor, the world's top-selling drug, in Ireland. Its Irish operation is part of a Pfizer network straddling 86 plants in 13 nations, from Belgium to Singapore to the USA.

Wyeth is pumping $1 billion into a factory in Ireland's Grange Castle to make infant vaccines, antibiotics and an arthritis treatment. The plant, expected to open next year, will have 1,200 workers.

Singapore, which ramped up its drugmaker hunt in the 1990s, taxes corporate profits at 20%. Since 1994, that's drawn more than $1.6 billion in factory investments from Schering-Plough, Merck, Wyeth and Pfizer."


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-10-19-moving-production_x.htm

BTW, where are the news stories of Canadians dying from unsafe drugs?

[Igel]

99. The FDA had called the company out once, and were

assured there was no problem with the flu vaccines, the problems had all been fixed. There were scheduled follow up tests that would have found the problem, no doubt, just later than the British found them. The British had inspectors on the ground to check the vaccine before the batches were completed.

Actually, in the end, the British saved the company a chunk of dough. They didn't waste time and supplies producing vaccine that would have been scrapped.

[Ms_Mary]

103. The FDA wanted to determine if the contaminated vaccine was safe for use

It was indeed the British who saved us from that. Incidentally, anyone noticed there's been no killer flu hype this year?

[Career Prole]

108. With respect...

From the NYT, emphasis mine...

A second "blitz" inspection by federal drug and customs officials of medicines imported from Canada has found that nearly all of the almost 2,000 packages opened contained foreign versions of American pharmaceuticals that officials said might not be safe.

Five of the packages contained Serevent, an asthma medicine made by GlaxoSmithKline that had been recalled in Canada because of a manufacturing defect. People in the United States who ordered the drug from Canada "probably got that defective product and weren't notified," said Tom McGinnis, the Food and Drug Administration's chief pharmacist.

The inspections, whose results are to be formally announced next week, form part of a coordinated push by the Bush administration to stop drug imports and defuse a budding confrontation between Washington and the states.

<snip>

The F.D.A. commissioner, Mark McClellan, said in an interview that the results of the inspections, which took place in November, demonstrate that drugs ordered from Canada are often manufactured in distant corners of the world. After an earlier survey, the agency announced in September that most of the imported drugs it inspected were counterfeit knockoffs. Neither round of inspections included any chemical tests on the drugs.

Asked if the pills reviewed in the latest survey were unsafe, Dr. McClellan answered, "We just don't know, because it's so hard to tell."

Governors and mayors leading the charge for Canadian drugs flatly dismiss Dr. McClellan's safety concerns. Many point out that even though the value of drug imports from Canada probably topped $700 million last year, the F.D.A. has yet to identify a single patient harmed by the trade. And they say that Health Canada, which regulates drugs in Canada, is just as rigorous as the F.D.A.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/business/24mail.html?ex=1106456400&en=044f1a9dd7c0c069&ei=5070&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position

Please pardon my skepticism, but when I see "coordinated push by the Bush administration" in close proximity to a bunch of "might be's" and "could be's" along with an open admission that they didn't actually do any tests and are literally just guessing then I dismiss the advice out of hand.

No offense to you, friend, but I've seen this tactic enough with this administration to recognize it for what it most likely is...another Shrubco fairy tale spun from pure greed.

When the FDA is ready to stop guessing and do some actual testing then I will certainly be interested in the results but until then it's just another fake "terra level orange alert" to me.

You referred to the FDA as "the gold standard in pharmaceutical quality, notwithstanding its flaws". There was a time not so long ago that I would have agreed, but even that once esteemed organization bears the stink of the chimp now.

The Food and Drug Administration found serious problems of bacterial contamination at an influenza vaccine plant in England in 2003, 16 months before British regulators effectively closed the site and impounded its flu shots because of fears they were tainted.

<snip>

The documents, which include FDA inspection reports, letters and e-mails, also revealed that the agency was nine months late in giving Chiron Corp., the owner of the plant, a detailed report of the problems it found and then rebuffed the company's efforts to learn more about what it could do to fix things. At the same time, FDA managers overruled its inspection team and made its fixes voluntary rather than mandatory.

The new information appears to undercut the agency's assertions that it had no reason to suspect that past safety problems at the plant had persisted and might threaten its huge production capacity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58482-2004Nov17.html

No sir...I'm no longer so confident as you appear to be in the FDA.

[V Lee]

7. Bush's supporters make more $ while more Americans die.

Sounds like business as usual in Bushworld.

[teakee]

165. Big PHARMA, the FDA, and Washington, DC all in bed........

together and you wonder why people die from meds, why tort reform is being pushed, why meds are so expensive?.......connect the dots. Bet Big Pharma had a party in D.C. around January 20th..... :think:

[Spazito]

9. I hope actions like this will cause the US public to act....

and force changes that forbid corporations from buying politicians in order to ensure their profit margin continues. On the Canadian side, I suspect we can get those drugs from somewhere else and stop ALL purchases from Merck or any other company that threatens us with withdrawal of product.

Edited to add: Part of the agreement with Canada and pharmacutical companies is the length of time before generics are allowed. Merck just broke the agreement ergo we can use generics in replacement. One suspects Merck has cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

[KingoftheJungle]

11. Here is some fun merck info (going back to bush, rockefellers, and nazis)

The world's No. 1 drug firm, Merck, began as an apothecary shop in Darmstadt,
Germany, in 1668. Its president, John J. Horan, is a partner of J.P. Morgan
Company, and the Morgan Guaranty Trust. He attended a Bilderberger meeting in
Rye, New York, May 10-12,1985. In 1953, Merck absorbed another large drug firm,
Sharp & Dohme. At that time, Oscar Ewing the central figure in the government
Floridation promotion for the Aluminum Trust, was secretary of the Merck firm,
his office then being at
One Wall Street, New York
. Directors of Merck include John T. Connor, who began his business career with
Cravath, Swaine and Moore, the law firm for Kuhn,Loeb Company; Connor then
joined the Office of Naval Research, became Special Assistant to the Secretary
of the Navy 1945-47, became president of Merck, then president of Allied Stores
from 1967-80, then chairman of Schroders, the London banking firm. Connor is
also a director of a competing drug firm, Warner Lambert, director of the media
conglomerate Capital Cities ABC, and director of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan
Bank. Each of the major drug firms in the United States has at least one
director with close Rockefeller connections, or with a Rothschild bank. Another
director of Merck is John K. McKinley, chief operating officer of Texaco; he is
also a director of Manufacturers Hanover Bank, which Congressional records
identify as a major Rothschild bank. McKinley is also a director of the aircraft
firm, Martin Marietta, Burlington Industries, and is a director of the
Rockefeller-controlled Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. Another Merck director
is Ruben F. Mettler, chairman of the defense contractor TRW, Inc.; he was
formerly chief of the Guided Missiles Department at Ramo-Wooldridge, and has
received the human relations award from the National Conference of Christians
and Jews-he is also a director of Bank of America.

Other directors of Merck include Frank T. Cary, who was chairman of IBM for many
years; he is also a director of Capital Cities ABC, and partner of J.P. Morgan
Company; Lloyd C. Elam, president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, the
nation's only black medical college. Elam is also a director of the American
Psychiatric Association, Nashville City Bank, and the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation, which gives him a close connection to Rockefeller's Sloan Kettering
Cancer Center; Marian Sulzberger Heiskell, heiress of the New York Times
fortune. She was married to Orville Dryfoos, the paper's editor, who died of a
heart attack during a newspaper strike; she then married Andrew Heiskell in a
media merger-he was chairman of Time magazine and had been with the Luce
organization for fifty years. She is also a director of Ford Motor. Heiskell is
director of People for the
American Way
, a political activist group, chairman of the New York Public Library, and the
Book-of-the-Month Club. Also on the board of Merck is a family member, Albert W.
Merck; Reginald H. Jones, born in England, formerly chairman of General
Electric, now chairman of the Board of Overseers, Wharton School of Commerce,
director of Allied Stores and General Signal Corporation; Paul G. Rogers, who
served in Congress from the 84th to the 95th Congresses; he was chairman of the
important subcommittee on health; in 1979, he joined the influential Washington
law firm and lobbyist, Hogan and Hartson. He is also a director of the American
Cancer Society, the Rand Corporation, and Mutual Life Insurance.

Thus we find that the world's No. 1 drug firm has directors who are partners of
J.P. Morgan Company, one who is director of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank
and who is director of the Rothschild Bank, Manufacturers Hanover; most of the
directors are connected with vital defense industries, and interlock with other
defense firms. On the board of TRW, of which Ruben Mettler is chairman, is
William H. Krome George, former chairman of ALCOA, and Martin Feldstein, former
economic advisor to President Reagan. The major banks, defense firms, and
prominent political figures interlock with the CIA and the drug firms.

[Pachamama]

12. It's called "Gray Marketing"...I'm familiar w/ this concept from my days

at Microsoft where they were concerned with say someone from Canada or UK, selling their English version to another country in Latin America where a similar copy of MS-Windows or MS Word would be more expensive.

Not sure of all the legal implications, but if a pharmacy or "Distributor/Retailer" has in their distribution agreement language that states that they may not distribute "knowingly" into other countries outside of Canada, then they can have their contracts canceled. However, if say Merck sells to ABC Pharmacy in Canada and they sell to someone who then sells in America, technically then ABC Pharmacy can't be technically held responsible if they "didn't know"....it will be interesting to see how this is worked out in the courts....The tricky thing is that you get into a whole bunch of legal issues on trade (especially in light of NAFTA) and the restriction of free trade....

[MockSwede]

31. Not so

Actually, they can be, because the FDA requires chain of custody documentation (from manufacturer to wholesaler(s) to pharmacies to patients) as part of "Safe and Effective" medication laws. Wholesale contracts freely entered into stand up in court.

I regularly receive medication recall noticies and pull medication off shelf because of various issues. There are three levels of recall, only Class I requires pharmacies to contact patients. (Remember Lipitor counterfeiting 2 years ago?)

That's why our medications are so safe. It's the SYSTEM that makes it so. Unchecked crap from overseas has NO system. When is the last time you ever heard of someone being injured by intentionally tampered prescription medication? It's never happened. BUT remember the Tylenol and Sudafed OTC tampering issues from the last 20 years? That's NOTHING compared to the counterfeiting and adulteration of 'drugs' in various countries about the world.

[Pachamama]

41. I didn't profess to knowing about drug contracts etc. - I used an analogy

with the software market....Gray marketing by the way is different from "counterfeit" of software or illegally made copies of software. Gray Market, (and the reason I used that as an example) are actual Microsoft manufactured and authorized copies by Microsoft that are sold into one market and are then shipped elsewhere into a different market. This is different from counterfeit illegal "copies" made say in Hong Kong and then shipped elsewhere....

I was trying to suggest that if Merck or another US drug manufacturer sells into Canada, and its shipped back (the same, not a counterfeit) then that is "gray market" and unless a distributor "knowingly" distributes it, chances are they can't be prosecuted or have their contracts canceled.

Counterfeiting of drugs is a whole other ball game...that is serious, and the drug companies in the US would love to have every American believing that if they buy from Canada, they are at risk of getting "counterfeit or dangerous" drugs.

[MockSwede]

73. 'buying from Canada'

there aren't enough drugs being shipped into Canada from legit sources to cover Canadians AND the 'greymarket' reshipping going on. check out the problems that canadian suppliers and pharmacies are having because of the real shortages of real medications because of greymarket reshipping. (so those would be 'bonifide' drugs, not counterfeits)

[BostonH]

71. Missing the point...

Unless someone is asserting that Merck drugs are made overseas in Cambodia, then the point is not that counterfeit drugs are bad. Everyone agrees with that.

If people are buying Merck drugs from Canada instead of Bob's Brand then they can be more confident about their medications. By having Merck drugs in Canada available for people from the US to buy then it increases the chance for those who can only afford Canadian medicine of getting good, real meds.

The only arguments against Merck selling drugs to canadian pharmacies is that they don't make as much money in Canada because the drugs prices are capped, and if the drugs they sell in Canada are sold to people in the US, then they lose those people's money who would be buying more expensive domestic Merck drugs. Basically, what it comes down to is Merck has a higher profit margin of drugs it sells in the US, and they want all the money they can get (yay capitalism).

The only people that should be in favor of this are big drug companies (Merck, etc) and people who sell drugs in the US because they don't want to lose business to Canadian companies (us pharmacies, MS I assume).

[MockSwede]

158. Some informational help, if interested

Sorry, don't own a pharmacy. No profit losses or gains here.

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Federal_Government_Affairs&CONTENTID=2392&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[brentspeak]

169. Maybe you don't own a pharmacy

But it seems likely that you have a personal interest in this issue that makes yours a biased opinion. Do you work for a pharma company (R&D), get grants from them, family or friends that do, US Customs?

[Boswells_Johnson]

15. If I'm not mistaken, a big part of the difference in the price of drugs

between the US and here is that drug companies are not allowed to advertise their wares. Also, they cannot claim all the trips, prizes, and other incentives (used to bribe HMOs and doctors) as a part of the cost of "developing" drugs.

[MockSwede]

32. Price fixing

Nope. It's actually provincial control of prices that pharmacies can charge patients. Remember the price and wage controls in the US in the 1970s for some things?

BECAUSE prices are fixed the pharmaceutical companies are screwed to the wall in Canada and therefore do none of that spending you mentioned.

(I find little use of it here, too, actually. And it gripes my arse that they say they spend X on research and spend 1.5 times X on advertising....)

[catgirl]

56. Price fixing = fair business practices.

There's nothing wrong with putting a cap on drug prices.

[Boswells_Johnson]

110. However, there are limits on drug advertisement

"Under Canadian law, when they're advertising prescription drugs to the public, companies can only state the name, price and dosage of a product, and not what it is used to treat. There are no limitations on the information that can be included in advertising aimed directly at medical professionals."

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/19112004/n5.shtml

[PA Democrat]

133. You are absolutely right

The US is one of only TWO countries in the developed world that allows direct marketing of drugs to consumers.

[cosmicdot]

16. freedom's advance around the world ...

a world moving toward liberty


is there an exit strategy from this farce?

I feel we're hog-tied, gagged and forced to ride this train toward the wreck located somewhere in The Twilight Zone.

[2Design]

17. time to boycott merck and take them down - what are their products

we shouldn't be made to pay higher prices because our politicians are in their pockets.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. I use one of their products a lot. Cebion.

Don't know if this is the same name you know it by. Anyway, Redoxon here I come.

[Mend]

79. Use Lipitor instead of Zocor

it is a better drug. Find a substitute for Singulair....there are a lot of other allergy medicines, such as Zyrtec. None of Big Pharma is clean but these people lied and now they are going to hurt us some more. Boycotting will help.

[youngdem]

24. Right, right, right !!

Couldn't have said it any better!

[MockSwede]

33. Boycott

Go ahead - kill yourself by not taking your medicine. That will save us all some insurance premium money. You seen the types of medication they make? That said, they don't need a 1.24 or 1.17 profit margin when most other businesses run on 1.02 or 1.07 at best.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reprobate]

39. I'd think a whispering campaign would be more effective.

Something like: "Merck killed my.......with vioxx, and they knew it would kill him/her, but they sold it anywy. And they got away with it!"

Bring it home and make it personal. Let people take it to heart and it will have more effect than a boycott. You'll get the boycott anyway but it will be emotional, not intillectual. That's far more effective.

[2Design]

40. yes you are right - using emotion - that is what the rw cult does

they use nebulous values based on fear and emotion of fear - that is the way to control people - fear

[Pallas180]

45. AGREED. Don;t buy any Merck drug - insist druggist substitute

something else.

Sell the stock.

Picket em.

and didn't they manufacture some of the pain drugs that are giving
people strokes and heart attacks?

get everyone you know who took their product to sue the bastids....

If we can put them out of business, it will be a message to the drug companies and this govenment .

[Pallas180]

46. If we can put them out of business, it will be a message to the drug compa

nies and this mis-administration the drug companies have bought off.

boycott/picket/sue the bastids.

[Thor_MN]

19. How dare they undercut US prices by selling back in the US at a profit

[PROGRESSIVE1]

21. Well, do we really want Merck's drugs? After, Merck kills!!!

Remember Vioxx???

:eyes:

We need government intervention to bring down the price of drugs!

[MockSwede]

34. Read the data

Vioxx isn't that bad. Aspirin kills, too.

Forget government intervention in cost of drugs. That's only 8% of what we spend in healthcare!

How about pooling all taxpaying citizens into one group in each state - that's called medicaid. It costs us state of ME citizens one penny on top of the $1 of care received to administrate Medicaid. Most insurance companies use 25 to 45 pennies on top of that dollar of care paid out. How's that for an efficiency comparison? SAME level of administrative functions provided AND accountable to the voters!

[98geoduck]

47. Viox is TERRIBLE!!!

I took the drug after back surgery and in one weeks time had UNGODLY Heartburn and heart palpitations. Mind you, I'm a fairly fit and healthy person. I was warned by my neurosurgeon and other health care professionals of it's BAD long term effects. This was two years ago...

This can't Even be compared to aspirin.

[laundry_queen]

48. No kidding...

My fit and healthy 40-something mother ended up in the ER with heart palpitations after taking Vioxx. This was about 2 or 3 years ago. They did all sorts of tests on her, despite her saying she had taken the drug. The tests were normal and they said they didn't know what it was. She stopped taking the drug on her own. It was never reported as an adverse reaction.

I doubt aspirin is in the same category either.

[MHalblaub]

124. Once I got a headache in Egypt.

I bought some Egyptian Aspirin (really made in Egypt).
I can tell you. After an hour my headache was gone.

[catgirl]

57. Let me guess, you work for one of these drug companies?

And let me ask you, do YOU use Vioxx?

[0007]

65. You sound like Tommy Thompson?

Your double talk and mixing apples with oranges isn't fooling no one.

[Career Prole]

123. Actually, going by profile and posts I'm guessing MockSwede is a

pharmacist (or pharmacy owner) from Maine whose business is taking a shellacking over this, which would explain his viewpoint.
If that is indeed the case he has my sympathy but not my support unless he drives home to a houseful of American-made products in his American-made car. The ol' "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" applies.

[Ms_Mary]

78. My uncle nearly had a heart attack taking it.

[ima_sinnic]

84. lost your way? bored?

don't you Armstrong-Williams-types have anything better to do than try to infiltrate leftist think tanks with your blatant propaganda?
See my post above, you can shove your payola up your (*#@%, and take all your greedhead corporate apologists with you.

[GiovanniC]

90. Yes, Of Course.... VIOXX = ASPRIN

Which is why just the other day I went into a store to get something for a headache and all the bottles of asprin had been ripped from the shelves.

It's pretty sad when the standards have been lowered so badly that a drug that kills people "isn't that bad" if another drug kills people too.

[annabanana]

141. cough cough williams cough......................n/t

[FlaGranny]

35. Ghouls is the proper

description of them.

Edit: Contact information:
Merck & Co., Inc.
One Merck Drive
P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100 USA
Phone: [phone]
Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET

I couldn't find an e-mail address for them.

[progressivebydesign]

37. Greedy M.F.s! If they cut even HALF their fucking ads..

..they could offer affordable meds to the U.S. I could totally do without that skanky viagra type ad with the woman touching herself while she's talking about her hubby's erection... For ads like that, millions and millions of dollars, that could make meds more affordable. Fucking capatilist pigs.

[zann725]

50. I knew this was going to happen. Now all those Seniors who depended on

cheaper prescription drugs, will just have to skip the "meds."

But the Drug Companies will reap record profits again...so hey, who's complaining?

[Cooley Hurd]

52. Next time I run into a Merck rep, I'm going to ask him to justify...

...this move by his employer. If he dares trot out the old drug rep excuse, "It's not safe to buy drugs from other countries," I'll ask him why Merck is selling unsafe drugs to Canada.:grr::evilgrin:

[Massachusetts]

89. OINK, OINK, OINK!

[merwin]

105. OK, WHAT EVERYONE IS FORGETTING IS

that this article is about Merck telling pharmacies to stop selling their drugs to US citizens. It has NOTHING to do with counterfitting of drugs. It's purely a profit/greed move, hence the quote:
"Drugs are generally cheaper in Canada because that country's government sets price controls, while the U.S. government does not."

ANYONE who is trying to make this article about counterfitting and/or safety is missing the point entirely.

[JPZenger]

111. When Will Bush Say that Canadian Drugs Are safe?

I thought King George the Second said last year that he wasn't against importing drugs from Canada, but that he was just waiting for the results of a study to see if Canadian drugs were safe. Is your study finished yet George?

I hear that drugs from Canada are actually made from ground up rats. Pass it on.

[Bridget Burke]

113. Actually, anyone saying this article has anything to do with safety.....

Is purposefully trying to derail the thread. "Missing the point" is too generous an interpretation.

[Spazito]

114. Very true!

It has been interesting, though, that the pharmacuticals are now sending their representatives to internet sites, guess they are realizing sites like DU jeopardize them by getting the truth out.

[AgadorSparticus]

115. wow. talk about BAD PR. this is going to hurt them. now, they have

put the fire under people's asses to sue the living shit out of their vioxx debacle--which i think serves them right for getting so effing greedy that they cut corners on research before peddling the shit just to make money at the expense of millions of people's lives. fuckers. this pisses me off to no end...

[tlcandie]

129. Dunno what all the big deal is ...honestly...

FDA = pharma companies paying their (FDA) salaries to accept/approve drugs. Heard that from I believe, Howard Zinn on DemocracyNOW! That should make EVERYONE much happier!!!

I know it surely makes me feel so much more secure! That is why all the recalls because the pharmas pushed the FDA to release before all the necessary testing was done for the...well you know..$$$$$$!!!!

:wow:

[David Zephyr]

134. Thanks Judi Lynn for bringing this story here.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

150. Well, we knew that was coming, didn't we?

and the "rip off" continues:(

[genieroze]

151. Canada's government give a crap about it's people, where ours only

cares about it's corporate political whores.

[sarcasmo]

162. Emailed this to my right wing Freeper Father in law, LMFAO.

Looks like he is going to have to pay full price for his pill popping now.

[cpamomfromtexas]

171. Just Fly to get your prescriptions filled, you'll still SAVE MONEY

I know someone who does it all the time, saves hundreds. Better yet, why not start a small business, getting all your friends drug needs and bringing them home?

Even better, let's CURE something instead of just medicating it for life? Anyone know a good place for make at home cures?

I'm sick of the medical establishment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

176. This is proof

that Merck's mission isn't to heal the sick, but to pad their own wallet.

I find this repulsive. And I can't wait for Michael Moore's new movie to expose these greedy pharmaceutical companies for the frauds that they are.

[CAG]

178. Big Pharma needs to keep the consumers confused...

but this is really, in essence quite simple:
Big Pharma does the following with its revenues:
20-30% Research
20-30% Administration/Production
30% Marketing
20% pocket as profit margin.

Obviously, of these four activities, other industries use revenues in varying amounts, but the pocketing for profits are usually just 2-6%.

Imagine if we could go back to the good-ol pre-1995ish days of Pharma "only" at a rate of 8-10% profit margins.

Marketing just floors me. Direct-to-consumer advertising is a total crime, absolutely unnecessary.
If you peel this back to its basic level, why IS there marketing? Do you really want your physicians choice of what drug to give to you based in ANY, WAY, SHAPE OR FORM what a biased salesperson propagandized to him over a free lunch or free round of golf?
This goes on everyday. I'm a clinical pharmacist who gets detailed from these slick used-car salesman everyday.

[CAG]

179. I can't help but mention one thing about Merck...

As a clinical pharmacist, I have to meet with drug reps almost every week. After most visits, I feel like I need a shower. I also have to counter their biased propaganda that they spout to physicians and physicians-in-training (residents) with actual studies and facts. The difference is I'm not able to spend ungodly amounts of money bribing (term used loosely, but still correct) the prescribers.

Pfizer is by far the worst. Lilly is next. Most aren't far behind. Ironically, I find the Merck reps to be the most reasonable and least pushy. Viox was an exception, but they were just spouting what their bosses were telling them without much clear countering data at the time.