Online Pharmacy Pioneer Arrested In Florida

FeatherBoa writes "A Manitoba man who was one of the first entrepreneurs in the cross-border online pharmacy industry has been arrested in Florida and is facing charges related to the sale of foreign and counterfeit medicines. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration claimed many of the drugs promoted as Canadian actually came from other countries. An FDA spokesperson commented, 'Many of these websites are operating outside of the United States. However, the internet's broad reach allows these websites to reach U.S. consumers.'"

Comments

Nothing better to do

[kelemvor4]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is bored and screws with a guy who helps people buy the health products they want to buy. News at 11.

Re:Nothing better to do

[hawguy]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is bored and screws with a guy who helps people buy the health products they want to buy. News at 11.

While what he is doing may be shady, I will say that Canadian drug stores enabled my mom to take a much more expensive brand-name drug that she wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. This drug was not covered on her insurance, and the ones that were covered were not effective for her condition.

She refused to let her children buy it for her, but when I found it online for 20% of the price (after pill splitting), she was able to afford it.

The problem I wish the FDA would address is exorbitant drug prices in the USA compared to what the rest of the world pays.

Re:Nothing better to do

[hazah]

Don't assume they are interested in your well being. So long as they can pocket your cash, they wont care one bit.

Re:Nothing better to do

[timeOday]

I have sufficient faith in Canada to pop pills regulated by them. But the summary says: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration claimed many of the drugs promoted as Canadian actually came from other countries."

If true, this is effectively sandwich-baggie stuff, plus false advertising.

Re:Nothing better to do

[jellomizer]

If he is not selling drugs and properly reporting where they come from, it could be a major health concern. For those who work in the Health Industry, You need to be sure that everything is properly documents and reported correctly. Ok you get these pills from a tiny nations (who seemed to be a major exporter of sugar) at 1/10th price, which appears to be brand name drug. Now you my be actually getting the real drug, or a forgery made from sugar, or worse, a copy from some of the active ingredients at different percentages, or different drugs all together. If you are not reporting it correctly, who knows. The FDA isn't cracking down on cheap drugs, but improperly documented drugs as they can be harmful.

Re:Nothing better to do

[LeadSongDog]

This drug was not covered on her insurance, and the ones that were covered were not effective for her condition.

Name and shame?

Re:Nothing better to do

[betterunixthanunix]

Sorry, but were you referring to the American pharmaceutical companies, or the online pharmacies?

Re:Nothing better to do

[JustOK]

Everyone.

Re:Nothing better to do

[Synn]

> Now you my be actually getting the real drug, or a forgery made from sugar, or worse, a copy from some of the active ingredients at different percentages, or different drugs all together.

There's a lot of FUD in that statement. Pretty much everything in the US comes from foreign made suppliers, except for drugs, because apparently Taiwan can make state of the art hard drives but can't mix two chemicals together.

There are plenty of reputable offshore drug suppliers and they're usually much much cheaper than US brands. I buy my Finastride from Cipla and pay about 1/8th the price for my meds.

Re:Nothing better to do

[__aaaehb3101]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is bored and screws with a guy who helps people buy the health products they want to buy. News at 11.

Actually he was buying generics made in different places(China and India) and re-packaging them as made in Canada, they may have been tested(no paperwork was ever produced to say so as far as I know). He turned in his pharmacy license before he could be convicted of fraud, unethical behavior and malpractice. He was an idiot to be in the US, he knew there were open outstanding warrants for him in the US.

Re:Nothing better to do

[hazah]

Take your pick. Big business isn't in the business to help you. They're in the business of getting fat by gourging themselves in every attainable resource, like all parasites.

Re:Nothing better to do

[History's Coming To]

Yeah. You know what, you should really stick it to them by buying a bunch of drugs from me at a bargain knock-down price that undercuts Big Pharma! Go on, it'll really piss them off, and I guarantee that there's not much rat poison, baking powder and whatever dust I found in the attic in my "remedies"!

Re:Nothing better to do

[hawguy]

Canada puts price controls on their drugs. If every country put price controls on drugs, you might find many less new drugs making it to market.

So you mean Canada is abusing our drug industry by forcing the drug companies sell drugs below cost? Why don't the manufacturers refuse to sell at such low prices? Is there some international law that forces drug manufacturers to sell drugs at any price set by any country?

Maybe lower prices would mean fewer drug ads on TV and fewer multi-page magazine advertisements? How much of a drug's total cost goes into marketing?

Re:Nothing better to do

[hawguy]

This drug was not covered on her insurance, and the ones that were covered were not effective for her condition.

Name and shame?

I think it was Prandin, a diabetes drug. This was the only drug that proved to be effective for her

This was several years ago and her monthly cost dropped from around $350 at the cheapest domestic place she could find (she compared a number of local pharmacies including Costco, Walmart and others and some mail order places) to under $60 by buying from Canada. I don't know what current prices are.

Re:Nothing better to do

[mcguyver]

Most of these online pharm orders are for non-medical reasons. The most popular, phentermine, is used to make speed. Other popular meds, viagra, cailis, didrex, are used recreationally. Knowing this, it's hard to sympathize with the online pharmacy industry.

source: I used to sell $10k in online pharm meds per day

Re:Nothing better to do

[moeinvt]

Socialism my ass! Competition is one of the foundations of free markets. Another one is consumer choice. Even the hardcore libertarians believe that there needs to be a tort system for settling disputes, and selling snake oil is at least a "tort". For the libertarians that believe in a minimal state, the act of fraud is a common law crime.

In the absence of the FDA, why couldn't someone start a business testing the quality of drugs? Why would any company intent on running and maintaining a profitable business deliberately sell garbage to their customers? Rather than have to submit data to the FDA, the drug companies could simply publish their research and the consumer, armed with the available knowledge could make his/her own decisions.

Think of the whole Vioxx fiasco. It increases the risk of stroke and heart attack so BAN IT COMPLETELY! That's government-think for you. Forget the fact that it was one of most effective treatments we had for arthritis pain. The trade-off between pain relief and risk of stroke and heart attack should be patient choice.
Screw the FDA.

Re:Nothing better to do

[moeinvt]

Businesses are "parasites"? If you're talking about the banking industry I agree.
Businesses that are providing real goods and services help you, even if they are looking to maximize profits. I'll bet that a big business manufactured the device you used to post your comment. Another big business is probably providing your 3G or internet connection too. Do you feel victimized, or did you gladly exchange some of your wealth for these goods and services?

Re:Nothing better to do

[moeinvt]

Probably true. But all other drugs would be sold at a fair market price based on real supply/demand dynamics. Or maybe the drug companies would simply refuse to sell to Canadian retailers at the controlled price?

This "artificial" import barrier is ridiculous.

Re:Nothing better to do

[hawguy]

In the absence of the FDA, why couldn't someone start a business testing the quality of drugs? Why would any company intent on running and maintaining a profitable business deliberately sell garbage to their customers?

Because they can? If cutting the drug with 10% inert (or even hazardous) ingredients increases their profit by 10% without being obvious to the customer, why wouldn't an unregulated industry do that? Who's going to notice that their Vioxx is 10% weaker? And a little Melamine in the pills probably won't kill anyone.

It doesn't seem that for-profit testing agencies would help much, because either the drug sellers would give pure samples to the testing agency, or they'd shop around until they found a testing agency that gave them the results they wanted - testing agencies that are more cooperative with manufacturers would get more business than "honest" agencies. Government regulation is supposed to be unbiased and immune to corruption since they don't accept money for goods.

Companies will cut corners where they can. Do you really think Coke is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup because the Coca-Cola company thinks it's better for you and because it's better tasting than sugar? They use HFCS because it's cheaper than sugar. Many people find that sugar sweetened goods taste better (and many think that HFCS is less healthy than sugar, but that's debatable). I know I prefer sugar sweetened Coke (imported from Mexico), and I am willing to pay a premium for it (though since I drink less than one Coke per month, the price is immaterial).

Re:Nothing better to do

[moeinvt]

Importing prescription drugs into the U.S. from foreign countries is technically illegal. The FDA is definitely cracking down on cheap drugs from Canada.

I'm not saying that the guy is NOT dealing in crap and misrepresenting his sources, but this "safety" excuse is just a ruse. Even if his product was 100% pristine, there would be an issue. If his business ever got too big, they would come down on him with force.

Re:Nothing better to do

[EvilBudMan]

If I remember right it was over counterfeit drugs back in 2006. If so that's a big deal.

Re:Nothing better to do

[AssholeMcGee]

If the SOPA bill would have gone through I am guessing this would have been one of its targets or others would have abused the bill towards this. Either the drugs he was selling were rip offs, or the drugs were cheaper and just as effective, and the U.S. prescription drug companies do not want you to pay less for drugs when they obviously want you to fork out hoards of money for "there" crap drugs. The ACTA if it had passed this type of selling, would have been targeted. I guess the humor in this is Canada with there Iron Fist laws, and why they have not banned cheap effective prescription drugs. They pretty much allow companies to dictate there laws like we do here in the US.

Re:Nothing better to do

[kelemvor4]

If the SOPA bill would have gone through I am guessing this would have been one of its targets or others would have abused the bill towards this. Either the drugs he was selling were rip offs, or the drugs were cheaper and just as effective, and the U.S. prescription drug companies do not want you to pay less for drugs when they obviously want you to fork out hoards of money for "there" crap drugs. The ACTA if it had passed this type of selling, would have been targeted. I guess the humor in this is Canada with there Iron Fist laws, and why they have not banned cheap effective prescription drugs. They pretty much allow companies to dictate there laws like we do here in the US.

Probably because they have national health care.

Re:Nothing better to do

[Occams]

The Canadian On-line Pharmacy is the most prolific spammer in the world. It makes all kinds of bogus claims about how its products are approved by the USA authorities, when most of them are not because they are made by Russian criminals whithout ethics, standards, or regulation of any kind. They have probably poisoned an untold number of people. I hope they string the bastard up by his balls.

Re:Nothing better to do

[hazah]

This is the function of business in general. I would not argue that business provides services for money. It's when business becomes a quasy government that I take issue with. Almost by definition, this what big business becomes.

Alternate interpretation

[dkleinsc]

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is vigilant and stops a guy who helps people buy what appear to a layperson to be the health products they want to buy but are in fact frauds that will kill them or do nothing while getting them to avoid proper treatment."

I'm not sure which is right, because I don't have the facts of the case, but it's quite possible that what the FDA is doing is a good thing.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[wisnoskij]

Well at the very least you have to assume that someone trying to sell you a drug with limited ad space is far less likely to disclose all the potential side effects and dangers then your local pharmacist/doctor (who are legally bound to not lie to you).

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Hatta]

The FDA is enforcing trademarks for US business interests. Nothing more, nothing less. They might stop someone from taking a harmful counterfeit drug, but they will also stop many from getting the drugs they need. Whether the former is greater than the latter, I doubt if they considered for an instant.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[PPH]

Probably true, but this is more a problem with HealthCanada than the FDA.

If I buy my drugs from a Canadian Pharmacy, I know (or should know) that I will be subject to Canadian regulations and quality control standards. The FDA's involvement in this should be no more than to inform me of this fact.

What broke down is HealthCanadas oversight of this guy's operation. The article seems to suggest that Strempler "every intention of conducting an ethical and professional business". Of course, that was one of his online pharmacy buddies opinions.

The FDA cannot assure the safety and efficacy of products that are purchased outside of legitimate channels.

HealthCanada isn't legitimate? Well, maybe not. So the solution should be: deport Strempler and see how the Canadians deal with him.

I'm all for the FDA keeping the American public informed as to what meets standards and what does not. But this situation isn't much different than me visiting Tijuana and eating at a local taco stand. The health codes aren't up to US standards, but I know that.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[betterunixthanunix]

Sure, that is a serious risk, but when some people have to choose between rent and their medication, it is a risk that they might be willing to take. If your doctor prescribed a medicine that cost you $200 even though you were insured, and that $200 would be the difference between eating and not eating, what would you do? Your choices are basically (a) forgo treatment or (b) seek a cheap alternative.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[jellomizer]

HealthCanada my be legitimate, but it isn't the FDA. It may be better or worse then the FDA, but that isn't the point, it is because they are not approved threw the FDA.

The difference is if you go across the border to get your drugs or a Taco, you know you are leaving FDA rules, and you accept the risk. If you are in the United States, you expect what ever you buy there should be within the rules of the FDA.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[jhoegl]

The medical industry has found that it is best to take advantage of the sick by reducing production and increasing demand.
For example, over the counter Vial of 70/30 humalin in 2002 was $20, now it is $76. 10 years later it has "inflated" well past even grocery store inflation.
The cost of gas is not the cause.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[UnknowingFool]

Yes and no. The crux of the FDA's argument is that some of the drugs come from other countries. That may be technically true but what the FDA isn't saying is whether these drugs are actually safe. Many pharmaceutical companies manufacture and sell in other countries. In some places the differences are minor. For example, a pain killer sold in Europe may have a higher dosage than allowed in the US but is the same drug. Or the the labeling is not in the correct language which makes it hard for the user to read about side effects or follow directions ("ie take with food. Do not take with alcohol") and thus legally cannot be sold in the US. I would like more details.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[operagost]

That product is long, long out of patent protection and available in generic form. No single company should be able to constrict demand. Even if that is the case, then they fall under antitrust laws and a suit should be filed.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[arkane1234]

Well, as much as I am for choice and not being locked down to specific companies, I don't trust companies that bypass every known safeguard of medicine. (i.e. skirting the FDA, and maybe getting their drugs from the UK or something)
I don't want to get gangrene from my prescription obtained from Finland.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Greyfox]

More like ordering delivery from that Tijuana taco stand. I bet if you operated a taco stand just on the other side of the border and tried to deliver into the USA, you'd get busted for that too. The FDA has also been cracking down on the production and sale of Mexican Bathtub Cheese and raw milk, despite the fact that most of the people imbibing those particular delicacies are well aware of the potential risk.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[waterford0069]

I'm within 2 degrees of separation of Strempler individual (I know a few people who went to high school/university with him).

The feeling as I understand it is that Strempler is/was actually hounestly trying to provide reliable drugs, an the company did do regular testing. However, the problem that come in that the global supply chain is full of counterfeits (thank globalisation and the far east). Stock from one supplier can be reliable one week, and not the next.

Perhaps having to do this extra testing has an upward pressure on drug costs in the US, and perhaps not doing enough testing is Strempler's mistake.

Is it excusable? No. I think it's a case of Misfeasance or Nonfeasance; not Malfeasance.

As an aside, he probably meant to go to Miami Manitoba, not Miami Florida - it's an easy mistake ;-)

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary it looks like this isn't quite the case.
Doctor prescribes medication X, which can be had for $100/pill in the US
Patient finds X online, shipping from Canada for $10/pill. Patient thinks this is a great deal and orders the medications.
Patient receives medication Y shipping from who-knows-where which may or may not be as effective as medication X.
FDA cracks down on the online store for defrauding customers with potentially dangerous medications.
Cue the sympathy for the poor little online store being stomped by the giant US gvt agency for only trying to help Granny get her meds cheaper

Re:Alternate interpretation

[L4t3r4lu5]

But this situation isn't much different than me visiting Tijuana and eating at a local taco stand. The health codes aren't up to US standards, but I know that.

Not really. Unless you're a dispensing pharmacist or medial professional, you're unlikely to be able to tell if the little yellow pill you ordered online is in fact your gout medication, a generic antihistamine, or worming meds for cats, and you won't know until your gout gets worse.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[dkleinsc]

His customers aren't being charged. What the FDA is doing here is saying that you can't sell a 64 oz Coke laced with arsenic and claim it's just a 64 oz Coke.

(And I'm with you on the soft drinks in New York thing)

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Hatta]

I don't want to get gangrene from my prescription obtained from Finland.

Don't worry, you can still get gangrene from your prescription obtained in the good old USA. There are over two million adverse drug reactions to FDA approved drugs per year.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ColdWetDog]

That product is long, long out of patent protection and available in generic form. No single company should be able to constrict demand. Even if that is the case, then they fall under antitrust laws and a suit should be filed.

Most of the drugs that have been subject to shortages have been generics. Cheap generics. Even after all of the hue and cry about the shortages (this is apparently a US only issue) it isn't very clear exactly WHY the drugs are in short supply. It may well be that they are too cheap - it's simply not profitable to make the drug, test it and deal with the various regulatory agents for the price the market will bear. It may be that the generic companies don't have their manufacturing acts together. It may be an evil conspiracy set in place by the Illuminati. It may be all of the above.

Antitrust has (likely) very little to do with this. In fact, most of the drugs that I've seen that are short supplied have numerous sources - at least from the pharmacy ordering end. Whether or not there are multiple manufacturers is harder to discern.

And further, even for generics, the inflation rate has tracked way past pretty much everything else for years.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

And how, exactly, do you propose to have any knowledge that what the FDA describes in the documents and what you actually got are anywhere near the same thing? Or are you really stupid enough to believe that just because you received a bottle that says 'lisinopril 10mg' that is what it really is in an unregulated environment? Or maybe your wonderful super-fast communication will get the word out that bottles marked 'lisinopril 10mg' are dangerous, and you should not take them? Of course, if you have the real thing and get this wonderful information you will not be taking the drugs you need.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ColdWetDog]

Here's an idea that's been floated before - allow drugs approved by a few other agencies to get imported. Agencies from large industrialized countries who appear to be doing at least as good a job as the FDA in weeding out counterfeit and poorly made drugs. Does anyone think that the Canadians or French or Germans are falling over left and right due to contaminated drugs? Does anybody think the FDA is perfect?

This sort of thing could be done in the space of a year or so. It would solve a number of problems but would never fly politically.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ColdWetDog]

Although there are minor dosing issues, it has always impressed me on how similar foreign drugs. Omeprazole 20 mg (generic Prilosec) is the same thing in the UK and in Germany. The labeling issues are pretty silly. If you get a prescription of the same drug from two different pharmacies is will often have different warning labels. It's pretty random (and useless).

If the US hadn't adopted the metric system for drugs and remained on the 'grains' and teaspoon structure of the 1800's we might have a problem. Canadian drugs in particular are very, very close to American brands, strengths and formulations.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

That is just the point - the FDA does not know if the drugs are safe or not, because they are not regulated by the FDA.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Chris Mattern]

Unless you're a dispensing pharmacist or medial professional, you're unlikely to be able to tell if the little yellow pill you ordered online is in fact your gout medication, a generic antihistamine, or worming meds for cats, and you won't know until your gout gets worse.

But on the bright side, your worms cleared up!

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

Getting the same prescription from two different pharmacies should certainly NOT result in two different labels. If it does something is very wrong. The 'labeling' includes not only the sticker the pharmacy puts on the bottle, but also the patient information sheet that comes with the drug. The bottles may be different (they are not regulated), but the patient information sheet (the real 'label') is the same.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[nospam007]

"Why should the FDA be allowed to decide what you can and can't ingest?"

Because they know best. TFS says that they found out that the WORLDWIDE WEB has a relatively broad coverage that reaches apparently also the US.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[AdrianKemp]

I'll preface this with the fact that I know nothing of what I speak.

The most likely explanation I've heard is similar to the diamond situation. If someone wants to start producing pharmaceuticals at a rate that would harm the big boys profits, they (would) simply lower the cost temporarily and drive the newbie out of business.

Combine that with a dab of conspiracy; they'll only continue selling the "good stuff" (new drugs) at semi-affordable prices if everyone plays ball and makes sure they still get a decent percentage of the old drug market (by limiting supply).

Given that neither scenario directly involves breaking (many) laws, and you can see the exact same stuff happening in other markets I tend to believe that explanation.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

Yeah, the stuff came from Canada. Except for the stuff that he said came from Canada but actually came from somewhere else. As for 'working for US pharma (ooh, evil!)', are you saying that the FDA does not approve drugs from non-US companies? Bullshit.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[theNAM666]

>me visiting Tijuana and eating at a local taco stand. The health codes aren't up to US standards, but I know that.

Thank you for your racist comment. Mexico has health boards, thank you. How is the Tijuana stand different than the same stand operating in Far Rockaway? It isn't, except that you choose a racist example.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[cpu6502]

My assumption is that the FDA is acting like my daddy, and I'm just a little kid, too stupid to make my own choices and decisions. Maybe I WANT to buy medicine from Canada. Maybe I am VERY aware of the risk, but willing to do it anyway. Maybe I believe if a problem existed, then CANADA would handle it, under their false-advertising laws.

In any case, just as abortion if MY choice, buying pills online should be MY choice, and not have to worry about the FDA sending me to my room like a bad little kid. I am sick-and-tired of this BS where the government thinks citizens are children who have to be cared for.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Seumas]

But it's more likely that they're acting as thugs for the pharmaceutical industry and all of this "we must censor/limit/control/identify people on the internet and enact SOPA to protect people from 'counterfeit' medications" bullshit is part of that.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

Finland isn't some 3rd world libertarian paradise. They have actual effective drug safety laws that seem to work better than the U.S. version. Same for Canada or the U.K.

If there was a way to region code drugs, that's what would happen, but since there isn't, the FDA has to step in and make sure Americans can't wriggle out of the pay our extortion or die deal they are offered.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

The difference is if you go across the border to get your drugs or a Taco, you know you are leaving FDA rules, and you accept the risk. If you are in the United States, you expect what ever you buy there should be within the rules of the FDA.

I kinda guessed the same thing by the way they proudly called themselves a Canadian pharmacy. When I order something from Canada, I expect that it falls under all relevant Canadian laws and regulations.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[pla]

You're just a full of shit conspiracy theorist unless you can prove your case.

He has conflated two different situations that apply here, but not even remotely "full of shit"

As the first situation applicable here, US (and other well-regulated "First World") pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs much, much cheaper to literally every other country in the world than they do in the US. Why? Because we have the single least dollar-for-dollar-effective healthcare system in the world, simple as that. You can buy cheaper drugs outside the US simply because they cost less outside the US.

Second, you have relabeled/expired/non-drug drugs sold fraudulently by unethical parties in some places outside the US. This doesn't differ in the least from buying your home theater kit off the back of some guy's box tuck on the side of the road; You may get it cheap, but you have no idea what you've really gotten.

The problem here comes from the FDA lumping all reimportation under the same banner. The first kind has absolutely no justification beyond protecting industry profits within the US. The second kind depends on the rigor of the applicable laws in the country from which you buy.

Some - I dare say most - of us believe that if you buy from a country with substantially similar drug safety laws to the US, the FDA should stay the hell out of the situation. If, however, you find a great deal from a Nicaraguan online pharmacy... Well... Personally I still say the FDA should butt out, but definitely more of a caveat emptor situation than nice safe we--regulated Canadian pharmacies.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the FDA isn't like that at all. It's more like they are making sure other people follow a strict set of rules designed to keep them from trying to pawn off untested shit on the general populous while claiming that it will cure AIDS, cancer, erectile dysfunction, heart problems, arthritis, alzheimer's, autism, etc, and even increase your IQ by over 9,000 points, and punish those other people if they violate those rules (in theory anyway, bribes et al notwithstanding...). You know, making sure that you can make an informed decision like the free market that you so worship requires.

Do they go too far? Perhaps. But better than the alternative. And before you say "but if corporations did pull that kind of shit, we'd kick their asses!", I would like to remind you that in a government by, for, and of the people, the FDA is our way of "kicking their asses".

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

The same thing applies if I pick it up in person from a U.S. pharmacy. I trust that the relevant local regulations have made sure they are at least careful enough that it's not a problem.

The question then is: Do I trust that Canada has prescription drug laws and regulations sufficient to make drugs dispensed there safe? The answer is yes.

My only concern with an internet order would be making sure it was actually a pharmacy operating in Canada.

It's funny how a company with an office in the U.S. is free to manufacture their drugs in the 3rd world and sell them here, but if an American consumer tries to order drugs from Canada, suddenly there's a "safety concern".

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

If it comes from an actual Canadian pharmacy, I would be relying on Canada's laws and regulations to make sure it was what it was supposed to be. Much as I rely on U.S. laws and regulations when I buy it from the CVS down the street.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

As long as it was consistent with Canadian law, I don't care. A lot of drugs sold in the U.S. don't come from the U.S. either, but they met the necessary regulations.

What the FDA is doing is helping to support the massive price hike that happens as soon as you take one step south of an invisible line. A price hike that leaves a lot of people choosing between food and necessary medication.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[UnknowingFool]

If it's the same drug, it's as safe as in the US. The side effects/risks don't magically change because it is being sold in another country.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[LanMan04]

Unless you're a dispensing pharmacist or medial professional, you're unlikely to be able to tell if the little yellow pill you ordered online is in fact your gout medication, a generic antihistamine, or worming meds for cats, and you won't know until your gout gets worse.

Unless they have a GC/MS machine, I doubt a dispensing pharmacist or medial professional could tell either.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

He said that the ONLY function of the FDA should be "gathering and publishing data on whats in a drug and what side effects have been observed. Period". Which means there are no US laws and regulations to rely on when you buy it from CVS.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

That's a mighty big IF you've got there. How do you KNOW it's the same drug? How do you know it isn't counterfeit? How do you know it was manufactured and handled under the same conditions as approved by the FDA?

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

From TFA: The current charges come two years after Strempler agreed to have his name removed from the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association registry. That move came after disciplinary hearings in which the association alleged Strempler's company sold drugs from overseas locations that weren't approved by Health Canada.

So even when he was registered as a pharmacy in Canada he wasn't selling drugs approved by Canada.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Miamicanes]

As a practical matter, some drugs really *are* "too cheap to counterfeit, and are expensive in the US only because we allow "use" patents, while other countries (like India) only recognize "manufacturing process" patents. So, drugs like finasteride (Propecia & Proscar) and atomoxetine (Strattera) are expensive in the US, and practically free in India.

Some drugs, like Tamiflu, *are* genuinely expensive to manufacture, easy to counterfeit, and *likely* to be fake.

Others are genuine, but expired or stored improperly (and possibly repackaged).

For the most part, drugs in the first category are perfectly fine, and most drugs from the third category are too. You just have to use common sense & do some homework to figure out which drugs are likely to fall into category 2 (hint: controlled substances like Xanax & Provigil almost always do).

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

The same way I know that a pharmacy in the U.S. claiming to be legitimate isn't actually a fly-by-night operation.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

And so they shut him down, same as when a U.S. retailer goes rogue.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

Incorrect. The FTC should have jurisdiction over that.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[TheRealGrogan]

They lie, therefore they can't be trusted. That's always been the pretense of stopping cross border pharmacy sales... the guise of stopping counterfeiting. In most cases the drugs sold are legitimate.

The U.S. drug market commands some of the highest prices in the world. The pharma companies artificially inflate the prices to sell to Americans. Isn't "capitalism" grand? Cross border sales are simply the "free market" coming to the rescue but oh no... there's too much bribe money ("lobbying") for that to happen. Freedom, my ass.

That's the issue here.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[bws111]

I see. So the FTC takes over the role of making sure that the drugs are safe and effective, and the FTC makes sure that the drugs are manufactured and handled correctly. And the FTC takes over making sure that the drugs are only sold by licensed pharmacies, etc. And how, exactly, is that any different, other than the name of the agency, from the current situation?

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Obfuscant]

Sure, that is a serious risk, but when some people have to choose between rent and their medication, it is a risk that they might be willing to take.

Note that the FDA apparently isn't prosecuting the people who bought from this guy, just this guy for defrauding his customers. He was, according to the summary, selling drugs he claimed were manufactured in Canada but were in truth manufactured who knows where. That's fraud. Misrepresentation.

Yes, the people should be able to take their risks. They should be told the truth about those risks before deciding, though.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[moeinvt]

If it was not illegal to import drugs and medical devices, people wouldn't be forced to deal with these small, fly-by-night operations in the first place.

Consider the illegal drug trade. If you get burned by someone selling you powdered sugar while claiming it is cocaine, you basically have little recourse. You can't call the cops. You can't file a claim with the BBB. You can't organize a boycott or widely publicize the fact that they sold you garbage.

Similar with these online pharmacies. You can't easily show up in person to complain. You can't go to the U.S. authorities and claim you got ripped off when you were doing something illegal.

The U.S. government is basically forcing U.S. citizens to subsidize drug and medical device development for the rest of the world, and doing so under the auspices of "keeping us safe".

In a free market, there's no way a company could sell the SAME product for 1/10th the price just across the border.

The FDA is protecting the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Plain and simple. I'll take freedom of choice any day.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[moeinvt]

The fact that it's illegal to import drugs and medical devices is precisely what enables the snake-oil salesman who are only looking to make a quick buck in the short term.

Get rid of the import ban and legitimate businesses will spring up to fill this need. Those companies will have a desire to stay in business and will be concerned about quality and their reputation. Not to mention that they would be subject to U.S. tort law.

The FDA can add whatever spin they want. Their mission in cracking down on these online pharmacies and importers is to guard the profits of big pharma.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Darinbob]

Most of these laws came about because of the high prevalance of fraud medicines and quacks. Sure people may have had more "freedom" to ignorantly give money to scams but there is a vested interest of the government to protect citizens from criminal predators. Maybe the regulation is too broad in some cases but this is not a case of the government butting in with no reason.

The real problem perhaps is why identical drugs in Canada cost less than they do in the US, maybe that's the problem that needs solving.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[celtic_hackr]

One point that should be made.

The FDA has charged him with:

"sale of foreign and counterfeit medicines".

Which would be true. The legal drugs you can buy in Canada are made in the US, and sold much cheaper in Canada than in the US. This is why so many people in border states would drive across the border and fill prescriptions there. The US passed a law [or tried to, I don't recall and too lazy to look it up] against that I think, or forced Canada to do so. Hence the origin of the Canadian Internet pharmacies. Which then attracted all the counterfeits.

Now had he been selling counterfeit drugs, they wouldn't have needed to add the "foreign and". Since they have linked them together, they only need to prove one to get a conviction.

Personally, if I could know for certain that I could order "Canadian" drugs from an online Canadian pharmacy, and that the US Customs wouldn't divert them, I'd buy from them. But the Pharma Companies have the US Gov't in their pocket and with both hands in our pockets in the form of ridiculously high prices in one hand and a big chunk of our taxpayers dollars in the other. It's list a fistful of dollars, except with both hands.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[UnknowingFool]

We don't know ANYTHING which is my point. All we know is that the FDA has said the drugs came from another country.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration claimed many of the drugs promoted as Canadian actually came from other countries.

You do realize that many "US" and "Canadian" drugs are actually made in other countries right? While the FDA may be technically correct, those drugs were supposed to come from other countries. The difference is whether they were corrected labeled "for Canada" as opposed to "made in Canada".

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Sun]

Teva (lit. "nature"), an Israeli pharmaceutical manufacturer who did most of their fortune from generic drugs, is, today, either the biggest or second biggest manufacturer in the world (though they did so many mergers and acquisitions that their name does not always appear on the package).

They are also the #1 reason that Israel is a permanent member of the US's intellectual property black list, despite the fact that Israel's pharmaceutical patent law actually lives up to the standards set forth by the US. In other words, the US is against generic manufacturers making cheaper drugs, at least if they are not American.

Shachar

Re:Alternate interpretation

[wisnoskij]

But in this particular case Canadian law, or any other for that matter, will give you very little protection. Online ads, and spam messages receive very little to no oversight. If you were ordering pills from a Canadian ad in TV or radio, sure you probably are protected moderately well.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

No, the FTC does exactly what it does for everything else, it makes sure that the bottle contains what the label says it contains and that no false claims are made. If the seller claims any sort of special training or other qualifications that add value, it makes sure he really does.

In other words, it regulates against fraud.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[EvilBudMan]

Right normally it is the generics that are most prescribed and in shortest supply. Why it happens in the US? It's all the dope people get here for the amount of people that they are. Doctors get kickbacks and things like that.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[EvilBudMan]

In fact there are no little boys. The makers of generics are also the makers of on patent drugs. Teva might be a exception as I think they just make generics.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Obfuscant]

My assumption is that the FDA is acting like my daddy, and I'm just a little kid, too stupid to make my own choices and decisions. Maybe I WANT to buy medicine from Canada.

The important thing to notice is that while you were being told the medicine was from Canada, it was actually from someplace else where the standards may not be what you would expect. You're not too stupid, the seller was too unethical. Big difference.

Maybe I believe if a problem existed, then CANADA would handle it, under their false-advertising laws.

Except it was advertised to YOU and sold to YOU in the USA and is a violation of US law.

In any case, just as abortion if MY choice, buying pills online should be MY choice, and not have to worry about the FDA sending me to my room like a bad little kid.

The FDA didn't do anything to you. They did it to the guy selling misrepresented drugs.

The last time I tried using an online pharmacy, it gave every appearance of being in the US and that I was buying US manufactured drugs. The package that arrived came from Thailand with a customs form declaring that this was a "gift" from a relative of mine living in Thailand. I immediately threw the package away and did a chargeback on the credit card. I had no reason to think that the contents were what I had ordered since the seller had already lied to me (not in the US) and the US government (a "gift").

The second attempt by the seller to bypass Customs and import laws netted me a nice letter from US Customs Service asking about a shipment from a relative in Thailand that contained non-FDA approved medicine, at least according to the internal labels. I told them what had happened, and that was the last I heard of it.

I am sick-and-tired of this BS where the government thinks citizens are children who have to be cared for.

So, if someone sells you a car where he's turned the odometer back from 100,000 miles to 10,000, the government should keep out of it and not arrest him for fraud? Should the USDA pull all the inspectors from the meat packing plants beacause you should have the right to choose for yourself the quality and packing for what you eat?

Re:Alternate interpretation

[EvilBudMan]

Why not go for the Gin? Cheese? I bet bathtub cheese would stop you up or clean you out. LOL I shouldn't be funny but.....

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Obfuscant]

There are over two million adverse drug reactions to FDA approved drugs per year.

There are two differences here. First, the side effects are documented and published. Second, the side effects are based on the approved drug and packaging system, not on whatever filler or compounding agent the pill maker had on hand that day.

I.e., if you get a side effect from Cozaar in the US, it's because of the drug or the FDA approved contents. If you get gangrene from Cozaar made in Thailand, it could be from the Cozaar drug, or the bag of whatever they used with it to form the pills that day, or from a rat or two that fell into the pill machine at the uninspected factory.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[tlambert]

From the article:

""[The] FDA cannot assure the safety and efficacy of products that are purchased outside of legitimate channels. This also means that we or the consumer cannot be sure that the products received are what the seller is claiming them to be, even if the seller says the products are 'approved drugs.'"

However, apparently they also cannot assure the safety and efficacy of products that are purchased inside of legitimate channels:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/04/04/150004423/more-fake-cancer-drugs-found-in-the-u-s

which sort of begs the question of the value of their rubber stamp on so-called legitimate channels.

-- Terry

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ThurstonMoore]

Link to the online pharmacy you use please.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[BlueParrot]

Transsexual here.

I was denied treatment for years due to the psych community having quite a few medieval-minded assholes in it ( no, I'm not just refusing to listen to them, we're talking about the kind of people who think there's something wrong with a girl who doesn't liek mascara ). As a consequence I basically had the choice between spending every night wishing I was dead or obtaining estrogen in alternative ways. Four years afterwards I finally managed to find a psych with a somewhat more sane attitude towards gender, and now I can get the medicines legally, but frankly I have a hard time blaming these people for filling a void that authorities have created with very little regard for those who get fucked over because of it.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ColdWetDog]

Yes, I'm referring to the little label stuck on the bottle "may cause drowsiness", etc. The actual USP patient data should be pretty much the same.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[PPH]

My only concern with an internet order would be making sure it was actually a pharmacy operating in Canada.

Same thing holds true of US On-line pharmacies. How do I know that www.cvs.com is really the Internet arm of the bricks and mortar CVS drugstore down the road?

I'm surprised that the FDA or state licensing boards haven't gotten into the certificate authority business. The state pharmacy board provides and authenticates secure site certificates for properly licensed entities.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[peawormsworth]

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is vigilant and stops a guy who helps people buy what appear to a layperson to be the health products they want to buy but are in fact frauds that will kill them or do nothing while getting them to avoid proper treatment."

I'm not sure which is right, because I don't have the facts of the case, but it's quite possible that what the FDA is doing is a good thing.

That is not at all what the artical says. In fact, it DOES say that he was trying to run a legitimate business and MAY have been duped by foreign drug companies selling the perscription drugs too his company. It DOES NOT say whether or not any drugs that were sold by this company where actually something different then what the customer/patient needed. It only says that the products reported to be Canadian were in fact made in some other country.

It is apparent that drug companies would prefer to not sell drugs at a consistent price worldwide. Instead they would rather set various prices in various locations to maximize profits depending on the disposible income of the location and the drug plans available. They would prefer to stop international trading that can provide real benefit to those who can otherwise not afford the medication they require... in order to keep profits at their maximum. They have used scare tactics to consumers by making vague statements about the "dangers of online drugs" and now they are actively deporting business owners from foreign countries to scare the owners and employees of these companies.

It is good that the FDA is trying to protect and inform Americans about drug risks and fraud. It is bad that they are in reality primarily protecting the bottom line of the giant pharmaceutical companies

Re:Alternate interpretation

[peawormsworth]

Patient receives medication Y shipping from who-knows-where which may or may not be as effective as medication X. FDA cracks down on the online store for defrauding customers with potentially dangerous medications.

Once again... there is absolutely no charge against this Canadian that his company ever delivered anything other then the correct medication the customer ordered. The reason he was arrested in a foreign country and brought back to the US was that the FDA acussed his company of selling products "from Canada" when they were actually manufactured in a different country. It is possible that he was "duped" into buying something that it was not from these foreign manufactures... but it is logical to assume that if the FDA had any proof of this, that they would have stated it as so. Instead, the article states some inside knowledge of an accusation of fraudulent cancer drugs that were sold from the company after this man was no longer working or running this company. I mean he could not have anything to do with that.

It is my opinion that this arrest and extradition is about putting fear into those who attempt to reduce the profits of big american drug/pharmacy companies.

Getting the wrong drug or an ineffective placebo is bad, but getting no drugs at all because u cannot afford them probably does much more damage to those who need it. If fraudulent drugs from online Canadian pharmacies were causing real statistical issues to the health of americans... we would know of it.

If the FDA really wanted to look out for the health of americans, they would work with the online pharmacies to find and report these fraudelent suppliers so the Canadian companies could avoid getting duped and passing incorrect drugs on to americans. Instead they want to use this as a mechanism to put fear in americans and close down a system which obviously provides a superior service to many of their citizens.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[peawormsworth]

You are incorrectly grouping spam with actual Canadian Online drug companies. These companies sell real drugs to real people and do not sell snake oil. There is no accusation that this Canadian business man sold anything other then the correct drug to the correct customers. The FDA just stated that it believes the correct drugs sold to the correct customers were manufactured outside Canada. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone ever received the wrong perscription. The end of the article talks about companies and drugs that were not what the customer ordered and fraudulent fakes. But this part of the article has nothing to do with this Canadian businessman. So if you think he sold bad drugs to americans... you are correctly being duped by the FDA and the composers of the article.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[peawormsworth]

The FDA is enforcing trademarks for US business interests. Nothing more, nothing less. They might stop someone from taking a harmful counterfeit drug, but they will also stop many from getting the drugs they need. Whether the former is greater than the latter, I doubt if they considered for an instant.

NO. This is a story about extraditing Canadian Online Pharmacy owners from foreign coutries to face charges in the US. It is about putting the fear of god into Canadian businessmen who do this about ever leaving Canada. From the article:

Andrew Strempler was deported from Panama and flown to Miami, according to Barry Golden, with the U.S. Marshals Department in Miami.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[peawormsworth]

...and it is about incorrectly putting an idea into the minds of america that: if u order from Online Candian Pharmacies, u will get the wrong perscription. Which is not true in the case of this extradition and subsequent arrest.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Phoghat]

I'm not sure which is right, because I don't have the facts of the case, but it's quite possible that what the FDA is doing is a good thing.

"possible", but not probable. This from a retired Pharmacist, who has seen more crap than he cares to admit.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[sjames]

That's a fair question. It's funny how somehow only Canadian websites are somehow a danger in the eyes of the FDA.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[AdrianKemp]

I don't think you actually read what I posted. You're free to call it batshit crazy or wrong or whatever... but what you responded with is in fact what I said.

The explanation I provided (which I am not in any way attached to, simply the most likely I've heard) very clearly explains why there are no little guys, they'd be forced out of the market. I even cited the diamond monopoly as a similar situation.

I don't understand what you were trying to add to the conversation.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[PPH]

I'm aware of the risk when I go there and eat that cheese. I'm also aware of the risk when I bring a block of it back*.

* I don't go to Mexico much. But I do go places like The Netherlands and eat the (non-pasteurized) 'farm cheese'. And I bring it back home as well.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[PPH]

If you are in the United States, you expect what ever you buy there should be within the rules of the FDA.

No, I don't.

I should be able to buy whatever I want as long as its just me taking on the risk.

Oblig bad car analogy:
Certain things like autos with unapproved emission controls I can understand not making it in. But if the car doesn't have air bags or meet federal collision standards, that's totally my problem.

What we have here is federal regulations being manipulated to maintain market segmentation for the benefit of US distributors. In a sense, I should have the same choice in selecting my regulator as I do in selecting my produt's brand.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Greyfox]

Don't tell the FDA. They'll smack you around. I saw an interview with one of their top-level guys during the raw milk kerfuffle a couple years ago and it was bizarre how bent out of shape he got about people doing this. He was quite agitated at the idea of people willingly drinking unpasteurized milk. It wasn't "oh you'll get diarrhea and blow your butthole out for a couple days" agitated. It was "drinking raw milk could make you explode and take out 40 people on a subway" agitated.

The interesting thing to me is that there are far more dangerous activities people could be involved in. Hell, I'm sure that driving to the grocery store to buy your raw milk is probably more dangerous to your health and well being. On a large enough scale, pretty much any activity is going to be deadly to a few people. The nanny state mentality people will never be able to insure that the entire population is completely safe, and if you get as worked up about that as this guy was, you will go completely insane.

So, maybe crazy people are running government institutions that were designed to protect the people from themselves. If you see that crazed look in the eye of the guy who asks you if you have anything to declare on your next trip when you have a bag full of stinky foot cheese, just say "no."

Re:Alternate interpretation

[EvilBudMan]

Me neither just agreeing.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Slashdot Parent]

Most of the drugs that have been subject to shortages have been generics. Cheap generics. Even after all of the hue and cry about the shortages (this is apparently a US only issue) it isn't very clear exactly WHY the drugs are in short supply.

I am not in the industry, but my wife is sick as a motherfucker, so we've been on the receiving end of some of this.

What's happened when she's suffered from a drug shortage of generics is:
1. Price is driven so far down that only 1 or 2 manufacturers can produce it profitably.
2. A manufacturer has a contamination or some other issue and is shut down by the FDA until they can resolve the problem, which can take a long time.
3. With 50-100% of manufacturing capacity offline, shortages ensue.

So, there ya go.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[kurzweilfreak]

The FDA isn't deciding that at all. If you want to eat arsenic, that's your personal choice. But what they can determine is whether or not someone is allowed to sell you that arsenic, or to determine that if someone is claiming to sell you medication X, that you're actually getting medication X and not horse hormone pills.

Give people the information they need and most people will make rational decisions.

That's exactly what the FDA is doing: they're telling you "if you buy this medication from this person, you can be assured that you're getting what they say it is." Buying medication from someone who HASN'T been vetted this way, you have no way to know for sure if you're getting what they claim you are. Unless you have your own chemical analysis lab. Because everyone has one of those, right?

Re:Alternate interpretation

[kurzweilfreak]

The odds that it's dangerous counterfits rather than simply the exact same thing US consumers would buy at home, but at better prices, are slim.

Are you willing to bet your life on that? If so, I've got some really great, safe.... uh, penis enlargement pills to sell you! Honest! I got them from Canada!

Pro-tip:

[nedlohs]

If you run (or have run) and online pharmacy that sold to Americans, a online casino or poker site that let Americans play, a file sharing site, and so on then do not set foot in America.

Best not get on a plane that flies near America (though that's going to be hard for Canadians) just in case.

At least make them go through the work of an extradition and maybe pick a country who doesn't just bend over and say "how far do you want me to stretch?"

Re:Pro-tip:

[busyqth]

For the hard nuts, we have extraordinary rendition.

Re:Pro-tip:

[Guspaz]

Canadians can still fly on plenty of domestic airlines, and I doubt an Air Canada flight that passes over, say, Alaska on the way to Tokyo, is going to divert to the US to arrest somebody.

In terms of if the FDA is overreacting, I'd suggest that if Canadian authorities aren't arresting the guy in Canada, then whatever he is doing is probably not bad enough that the FDA should get involved when he visits the US.

Re:Pro-tip:

[hweimer]

Canadians can still fly on plenty of domestic airlines, and I doubt an Air Canada flight that passes over, say, Alaska on the way to Tokyo, is going to divert to the US to arrest somebody.

Sometimes flights get diverted for other reasons (technical problem, medical emergency, ...) and the US will know that you are on the plane because they require access to PNRs for flights passing over US airspace.

Re:Pro-tip:

[nedlohs]

Sure it's unlikely to do so just to arrest somebody, but planes sometimes have to land where they aren't scheduled to. Which is why it was in the "just in case" sentence, it's an additional risk on entering US jurisdiction.

Re:Pro-tip:

[nedlohs]

Sure if you are running a file sharing site, but the more minor offences like selling fake pharmaceuticals that kill people are unlikely to result in that.

Re:Pro-tip:

[tlhIngan]

Canadians can still fly on plenty of domestic airlines, and I doubt an Air Canada flight that passes over, say, Alaska on the way to Tokyo, is going to divert to the US to arrest somebody.

The US demands passenger manifests and other information from every flight that overflies American airspace, even if they don't touch US soil - and I believe they even have the right to say no to the flight - either it land at a US airport and offload the objectionable passenger, or it bypass US airspace.

I believe Boeing and Airbus are making medium-haul planes to counter this, so people going from Canada to Mexico, say, can avoid US airspace completely and thus bypass the issue.

Re:Pro-tip:

[EvilBudMan]

Does Amazon sell drugs? Or can they in the US? I bet they would be cheaper.

Federalist #51 (Madison):

[Anonymous Coward]

Federalist #51 (Madison):

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government
to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Cannot Understand his Customers

[wisnoskij]

I cannot understand why anyone would see an add for drugs online and actually go ahead and purchase that online without doing to your doctor/pharmacist, talking to them about the drug and then getting it through official channels.

You have no reason to believe that any claims made by someone trying to sell you drugs online are true, and no reason to believe that the little white pills shipped to you are even what you ordered. At the very very least, you cannot be at all confident that other medications yo are taking do not conflict or you have some other physical attributes that make taking it dangerous.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

And seeing a doctor is somehow going to make this better? Certainly not where I live. One way or another, the only useful information about a drug I've ever been able to get was from self-research.

Seriously, I've seen doctors prescribe pregnizone without any mention of any potential interactions and side effects, and that's the kind of drug where the side effects are often worse than the symptoms being treated.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[dkleinsc]

I can think of several reasons people would do this:
1. Some people are stupid.
2. People are often on a very very limited budget, and the online option may appear at least to be cheaper than the drugstore.
3. (Corollary to 1) Some people will diagnose themselves with illnesses that the doctor doesn't think they have, so they'll go and buy the treatment through channels that don't involve official doctors and prescriptions.
4. People who abuse prescription drugs would likely find this a very convenient option.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Hatta]

There are a lot of uninsured and underinsured people out there. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, and you'll be out $150 of grocery money if you take an office visit (not to mention the time off of work you won't be getting paid for), then self-diagnosis on the Web and foreign pharmacies start looking like attractive options.

This is what people are forced to do in a for profit health care industry.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[betterunixthanunix]

I cannot understand why anyone would see an add for drugs online and actually go ahead and purchase that online without doing to your doctor/pharmacist, talking to them about the drug and then getting it through official channels.

When a 30 day supply of a medication that greatly improves your life costs hundreds of dollars from legal channels, and only a fraction of that from online pharmacies, what do you do? This is one of the problems with health insurance in America -- you have uninsured and in some cases insured people who cannot afford medicines. There is also the consequences of the war on drugs, which leaves us vulnerable to the demands of pharmaceutical companies for medicines that can be grown in our backyards (and I am not just talking about marijuana, although that is a prominent example).

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[MadKeithV]

Seriously, I've seen doctors prescribe pregnizone without any mention of any potential interactions and side effects, and that's the kind of drug where the side effects are often worse than the symptoms being treated.

Pregnizone? Are the side effects of that drug children?

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

I do it because it's convenient, it's cheaper and I don't have to sit for hours in some doctor's office to get my prescription renewed.
As you may have guessed, it's boner pills and my insurance doesn't reimburse those anyway.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[MadKeithV]

When a 30 day supply of a medication that greatly improves your life costs hundreds of dollars from legal channels, and only a fraction of that from online pharmacies, what do you do?

You mean "when something ostensibly labeled the same as the medication that greatly improves your life is advertised on online pharmacies, who often have no accountability to actually supply you with the real thing whatsoever". These types of online places aren't in it for the altruism - they are in it for profit, and preying on the weak. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Pregnizone doesn't exist.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Eh, it really isn't that hard: just adjust the prices of doing the things you talk about, and the available income of the person making the choice, and it all falls into place. Secondary cases would include people on long-term maintenance drugs and people who are looking to score some of the more interesting anesthetics. Unless you are reasonably well insured, even some fairly prosaic drugs can be painfully expensive through official channels, and getting a doctor to have a look, have a chat, and write the prescription also quite pricey.(You do, of course, also have the people who are, for whatever reason, hellbent on ignoring medical advice concerning side-effects and contraindications and getting the drug anyway)

As for quality, the major distinction to worry about(and, this one probably isn't always trivial to judge) is 'black market or grey market?' Drug makers have extremely strong price discrimination in place, and the US is pretty much always on the high end. 100%-genuine-chemically-identical-and-blessed-by-Pfizer-but-only-for-snow-mexico can easily be vastly cheaper than otherwise identical product stamped for sale in the US.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[betterunixthanunix]

Sure, that is a risk and it should not be downplayed. My point is that for some people, the choice is between not receiving treatment or taking a chance on an online pharmacy (or receiving treatment legally, but not being able to eat or pay rent).

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[JustOK]

Turn in yer geek card. Anyone who can't get hard (penile or clitoral) just by thinking about Star Wars and Linux shouldn't be reading this site.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Hatta]

These types of online places aren't in it for the altruism - they are in it for profit, and preying on the weak.

And why do you think the pharmaceutical industry is in it?

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[MadKeithV]

And why do you think the pharmaceutical industry is in it?

And that's EXACTLY why they are heavily regulated by the FDA and local laws.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Synn]

> I cannot understand why anyone would see an add for drugs online and actually go ahead and purchase that online without doing to your doctor/pharmacist, talking to them about the drug and then getting it through official channels.

Well, I think it's stupid for anyone to take any med without talking about it with their doctor. That said, meds in the US are marked up to an absurd level. It's often much cheaper to talk with your doctor, get a prescription, toss that in the waste basket and just order the med from India.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[CanHasDIY]

This is what people are forced to do in a for profit health care industry.

Precisely; if the American health "care" industry wasn't fundamentally broken, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Hatta]

Exactly, the FDA is a means for the pharmaceutical industry to profit and prey on the weak. If you can't get cheap drugs from Canada, you'll buy the overpriced American drugs.

If they really cared about the patient's health, they'd be figuring out ways to get real drugs to patients for a reasonable price without importing. But I don't see that happening.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[filthpickle]

actually go ahead and purchase that online without (g)oing to your doctor/pharmacist

I did that. In case anyone thinks of following your advice I can answer for you. They will tell you not to do it.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[hazah]

These fluids should be in my stomach, not coming out my nose! You insensitive clod.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[Soluzar]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the US is it not possible to visit a doctor and be given a prescription while being unable to afford to fill it at domestic prices?

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[sjames]

A kid in Fla. died when the American pharmacy down the street filled his prescription for Ritalin with methadone.

hese types of online places aren't in it for the altruism - they are in it for profit, and preying on the weak. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

As opposed to the U.S. pharmaceutical industry that is run by nuns for the benefit of mankind? Were that so, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[sjames]

And that is exactly why in Canada, they are also regulated, just not by the U.S. FDA.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[moeinvt]

I think people who use online pharmacies generally know what they're looking for and have a prescription for the drug.

When getting it through "official channels" means $12K per year, and getting it through "unofficial channels" means $1200 per year, it's worth a little bit of risk, especially if the choice is between taking your meds and paying your rent and utility bills.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[moeinvt]

If you were an uninsured person with a chronic medical condition working for minimum wage you might reconsider.

It's not like you're buying it on the street corner either. You can do some research about these places. A web site selling sugar pills as prescription drugs wouldn't last long and would definitely have some bad publicity you could find via Google search.

Hell, you could strike out on 9 places out of 10 and still save yourself money vs. US prices.

I REALLY doubt that a scammer would sell something poisonous. At worst, you're likely to get something inert.

If it wasn't ILLEGAL to set up a drug importing business, we wouldn't even be having this dialogue.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[EvilBudMan]

Yes it does it makes you impregnable or pregnant one at least in Canada.

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[JonySuede]

That is how bad the side effect is !

Re:Cannot Understand his Customers

[BlueParrot]

5. Local regulatory agencies have treated doctors like drug dealers, making them reluctant to prescribe medicine to people who need it, forcing patients to turn to the black market simply because doctors are forced to care more about covering their own ass than treating the sick.

Oh yes I'm bitter. If you had been left to suffer and forced to buy medicines from shady sources you'd be pissed too. No, I'm not a hypocondriac, I eventually found a doctor with some spine, and now I can get help legally. No, she didn't just give me a prescription because I demanded it, she did so because offical guidelines say that is how people with condition should be treated.

I can go buy hundreds of cigarettes whenever I want and smoke my lungs to ash, but a comparably safe and non-adictive medicine is treated as if I were doing heroine.

Counterfeit or foreign?

[hawguy]

So was he selling counterfeit drugs or foreign, non-Canadian drugs that could possibly be counterfeit but there's no evidence that they are? They seem like two different things.

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[Herkum01]

That's because his crime was selling drugs to a US citizen below their listed retail price.

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Team Intellectual Property has done their level best to lump all classes of 'products that they don't like' into a homogenous category of wickedness.

One would think that a meaningful distinction could be drawn between the following categories:

1. Fakes: Capsules full of god-knows-what fraudulently labelled as being something else and sold as such.
2. Counterfeits: Generic drugs (or non-OEM compatible FRUs, in situations like ink cartridges) fraudulently sold as being the name-brand good.
3. Unauthorized resale: Authentic goods being sold in some manner that makes the manufacturer a sad, sad, panda.
4. Authorized distribution: Authentic goods being sold as the manufacturer wanted.

Unfortunately for everyone, except for the blatantly self-interested parties, there has been a concerted effort to muddle the genuinely pernicious and dangerous class 1, and the possibly safe but definitely fraudulent, as in class 2, with the merely-cuts-into-profits-from-price-discrimination-between-countries of class 3.

Thus, while ICE will attempt to hunt you down if you are shipping in boxes of sugar pills labelled as some drug, or generic printer cartridges stamped "HP", they will also bust you for importing authentic Rolexes, legally purchased outside the US, if the trademark holder doesn't want you selling them in the US, despite them being 100% genuine product, with no theft or fraud in the distribution chain...

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[Guppy06]

Just as "arrest" and "conviction" are two different things.

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[dbcad7]

He probably wasn't selling "counterfeit" drugs, any more than a pharmacy selling generics are.. more likely he did use the brand name to promote the sale of a generic though,.. As to "foreign".. ok, um in the first place Canada is technically a foreign country, so there's that.. and then there is the fact that we in the US pretty much buy everything foreign made.. known or not... so saying "foreign made" is supposed to be scary, or a crime ?.. Walmart would be the criminal masterminds of all time if selling "foreign made" is a crime.

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[StinkiePhish]

3. Unauthorized resale: Authentic goods being sold in some manner that makes the manufacturer a sad, sad, panda.
. . .
[T]hey will also bust you for importing authentic Rolexes, legally purchased outside the US, if the trademark holder doesn't want you selling them in the US, despite them being 100% genuine product, with no theft or fraud in the distribution chain

The Supreme Court will decide this issue next term in the context of a student importing legally purchased textbooks in Thailand and reselling them in the US. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/

Re:Counterfeit or foreign?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The FDA has its pros and cons; but the real kicker, to my mind, is the purely rent-seeking customs/trademark enforcement of restrictions on even drugs that are FDA approved in the US, and prescribed by licensed physicians, that are imported from countries where they sell for less.

I'm all for fraud being illegal(either people filling gelcaps with floor sweepings and rat poison and selling it as the real deal, or people selling generics as name brands); but the fact that that our 'free trade for me but not for thee' system means that customs can come down on you like a ton of bricks for importing legally purchased, genuine goods, that are legal in the US, and selling them without misrepresentation because the manufacturer doesn't like that is absolutely insupportable.

There are definitely some seriously skeezy and almost-certainly-fraudulent 'canadian pharmacies' and assorted pill-mills on the internet; but(living in the northern US), there is a fairly visible trend of people simply driving over the border, in person, and walking into the same retail pharmacies that the natives of the savage northlands use, and getting prescriptions filled. If you are on enough expensive drugs, apparently the trip more than pays for itself. I'm doubting that this particular practice is a terrifying cesspool of fraud. More broadly, the fact that even totally legitimate imports are restricted tends to leave the market open for pure fraud, since all the import operations are legally troubled, the 'legitimate' operators that provide the chemical they say they do have a hard time competing with the pure scammers, who are much more dangerous; but also have better margins.

Counterfeit drugs in Florida ... AGAIN

[Lluc]

Florida has been a hotbed of counterfeit and stolen prescription drugs. I doubt this is a simple case of someone helping the uninsured buy legit drugs from Canada -- maybe it would be in another state, but not Florida. For more information I recommend reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Doses-Counterfeiters-Contaminating-Americas/dp/0151010501.

Capitalism,legislated.

[Dzimas]

US business is always preaching e benefits of free market capitalism, yet the drug industry is regulated and restricted in a manner that artificially inflates prices and restricts competition. If this person was selling counterfeit medicine, by all means throw the book at him for endangering lives. But if all he is doing is supplying a gray market product, he is actually serving a valid economic purpose by helping to push down the prie of essential medical supplies for an aging American population.

Re:Capitalism,legislated.

[Bigby]

Very few US businesses preach free market capitalism. They preach managed market capitalism. They achieve that goal through the practice of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism increases in effectiveness with the size of government (and its power). And free market capitalism gets the bad rap as government power and size increases. Go figure.

Re:Capitalism,legislated.

[Maximum Prophet]

US business is always preaching the benefits of free market capitalism, ....

Yes, but most US businessmen are not capitalists, but monopolists. To give an sports analogy. If a runner tries to do her best and wins the race that's good, and races will thrive. If the runner tries to win the race by shooting her competitors, or getting rules to eliminate them, she might win one more race, but the spectators will go away, and no more races will be held. There must be competitors for there to be a race.

Monopolists try to wipe out the competition. The end game, if they are successful, is worse off for everyone, even the monopolists. They get to swim in their vaults of gold and cash, but if they truly win, the economy collapses, and everyone starves. (Yes, Mr. Monopoly starves last, but he does starve)

Re:Capitalism,legislated.

[fermion]

Right now there are many levels of business pushing up drug prices. In particular, insurance companies need their profits. This became worse when Bush put the federal government in the equation with medicare part D. This allowed drug companies to use hundred of billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep the prices high. Those of us in the middle pay twice, once for out own drugs, once for subsidized drugs.

We should impose efficiencies in drug distributions. Ads are a waste of money. The alleged high price marketing persons are probably a waste of money. Regulate drugs to make sure they are safe, limit payments to professionals to create fake research, and let the market pay what it feels is justified for the drug. Assume that some people are not going to have the drugs because it is simply not a priority. As Nancy said, just say no to drugs.

Re:Capitalism,legislated.

[Mashiki]

Bingo. The pharmacare market in the US is a fine example of crony capitalism in action as much as solyndra was.

There are many reasons to buy drugs online

[nomaddamon]

I live in EU and i fly to Egypt twice a year to update my drug supply (in addition to a nice vacation).
I have chronic migraine (serious pain every 3-5 days, I've seen all the best doctors nearby and no one can help me)
There is one drug that can take the pain away in ~2 hours... the problem... it costs 80$ (after subsidies) a pill thanks to patents.
On average i need 2 pills per seizure (my worst has been 4 pills).
Buying the medications from EU will mean around 15k / year

In Egypt they sell a generic version of the same drug, only they don't pay patent fees... it costs 2$ for a box of 20 pills.
So going to Egypt twice a year and bringing back the maximum legal amount of the medicine costs me around 1k / year and i get 2 weeks of vacation as a bonus

So yes, I would buy it on-line if i could, but it's illegal thanks to the same companies who are making 8000%+ margin on the pills...

Re:There are many reasons to buy drugs online

[Hatta]

I have chronic migraine (serious pain every 3-5 days, I've seen all the best doctors nearby and no one can help me)

Have you tried low doses of psilocybin mushrooms?

Pick up your newspeak dictionary

[betterunixthanunix]

"Counterfeit" does not necessarily mean "fake" or "mislabeled," it may me "the real deal, but in violation of a patent or trademark." Unless the FDA is publishing a chemical test that demonstrates that these drugs were not what they claimed to be, I would bet that the word "counterfeit" in this context means the latter.

Re:Pick up your newspeak dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

"Counterfit" could probably also mean "made by the same manufacturer in the same (non-US) factory but never imported by that manufacturer to the US."

Similar to video games and DVDs -- different prices for the same product in different regions, despite being made by the same company in the same factory.

International drug certifications?

[bdabautcb]

When I see stories about the pervasiveness of the internet and its efficacy in aiding distribution of internationally sourced drugs, I wonder why the easy dissemination of electronic information hasn't been implemented by any global organizations to provide testing and certification of drug manufacturers. For example, a global group such as the WHO could provide an opt-in service where a manufacturer submits to testing and receives either a rating or pass/fail type of certification regarding the quality and purity of their drugs. I think most above-board manufacturers would even pay for or split the fees to obtain widely respected approval.

I am not a chemist and can not speak to what the cost of such testing would be, however I would imagine that dealing with established generic drugs it could be accomplished at a fraction of the money spent by the FDA on granting their approvals. US pharmaceutical companies would obviously be opposed to such a system, but in cases like this international oversight may be a catalyst for shifting the focus of drug manufacturers from maximal profit to providing effective, high quality drugs at prices more representative of market cost.

Silk road

[betterunixthanunix]

How about letting businesses build reputations for selling safe, reliable drugs? You know, like how things worked at a certain other online drug store...

Re:The government = corporation profit enforcement

[arkane1234]

I'm thinking there are far less licensed pharmacists skirting the law than unlicensed ones...
which by very definition are skirting the law, in every way.

FDA doubts

[bjs555]

If I had more faith in the FDA I might side with them on this. But it seems that the FDA is now so heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry that I have my doubts. I think an important function of a regulating body like the FDA is to not only investigate the safety of a drug but also its efficacy. In my opinion, the FDA is very weak in that area. New drugs that are no better than old ones and possibly more dangerous since there is no long term experience with them are approved all too often in the name of profits. It seems that new drugs with very small statistical benefits over existing drugs get patented and approved. I'm not saying that all new drugs fall into that category but some do.

He's not squeaky clean

[Kinthelt]

He lost his credentials to practice in Manitoba, and was charged with professional misconduct in 2009. http://goo.gl/O3zdd

Limited Trust

[Roger W Moore]

Does anyone think that the Canadians or French or Germans are falling over left and right due to contaminated drugs?

No, we are not. However in all fairness, in reverse I would not want to take drugs that the FDA had approved but which Health Canada had not (unless the risk was medically worth it) because of things like bovine growth hormone which the FDA (or at least some US government agency) has approved for use on cattle which enter the human food chain but which very few (any?) other countries have. While Americans may not be keeling over from this it is known to affect the development of children and potentially may affect your health.

Where I would be far more willing to trust the FDA is if a drug is approved for use in Canada but I could buy it cheaper in the US I see no problem in purchasing the FDA approved version of the drug on the basis that I expect US quality control standards on drugs to be as high as Canada's. However given the prevalence of for-profit healthcare in the US I cannot imagine that I will ever find a drug which is cheaper in the US than in Canada - those corporations have got to make their money somehow!

Were calling criminals entrepreneurs now

[Stan92057]

Were calling criminals entrepreneurs now? Its amazing how some people think it really is.

We have a winner

[ThatsNotPudding]

The FDA is enforcing trademarks for US business interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

I seriously do wonder if even corporations in 1930s Italy had this much power.

not lie to you?

[zentigger]

I guess that all depends on one's interpretation of truth.

It is unfortunate that, all too often, "The Truth" is sold by those with a financial interest greater than the cost of the truth. The doctors and pharmacists have culpable deniability because they are just going on what they were told and in the end, it is the patient that suffers.

Oxycontin comes to mind as a very recent example of this behaviour, and I'm sure when all is said and done, this guy will walk away paying a fine that is but a fraction of the profits he made.

On the other hand, who is really stupid enough to buy drugs over the internet? Might as well buy them on the street corner and save the shipping costs.

Re:If its run from within Canada

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

They're probably supposed to have an Rx from a Canadian doctor, but I've ordered enough human medications from Canada prescribed for my cats (for conditions like heart failure) to attest that while all places do require a prescription, they don't require that it be from a Canadian doctor specifically -- the norm is to get the prescription (mailed, faxed, or scan/email) and then call the vet to confirm it's OK. The most recent time I looked around was about 1.5 months ago, so I'd say my data is fairly current.

FWIW the pharmacies I've used have been recommended for several years by members of large discussion groups specific to a particular pet illness. For any people that are wondering, we all spend the time/money because the drugs control the condition so they can have a normal happy life for months or years (and we/they don't mind the extra bonding time of giving them a medicated "treat" once or twice a day).

What a pity

[stoatwblr]

I was hoping that the FDA had arrested one of Shane Atkinson's associates in the ongoing "Canadian Pharmacy!" fake drugs scams.

discredit online drug sales to protect profits for

[mrdtr]

I cannot say for sure if he is guilty or not, but it is known that the drug companies and American drug retailers despised those internet pharmacies and those who ran them. I somehow suspect there are alterior motives for this action.

The FDA (although they wont admit it), have been pressured by the drug companies to discredit the internet pharmacy industry for years, all for protecting the over-priced medication sales within the USA.