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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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:

[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 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.

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."

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: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.

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: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?

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: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).

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: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

[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.