Refrigerator-Sized Machine Can Print Pills on Demand (dailymail.co.uk)

RoboPharmacist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:06 · Score: 0

Because giving people jobs is so 19th century.

Re:RoboPharmacist by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-04-02 06:11 · Score: 1

Because giving people jobs is so 19th century.
This would be the first vending machine to take thousand-dollar bills.
Re:RoboPharmacist by John+Jorsett · 2016-04-02 09:17 · Score: 1

Because giving people jobs is so 19th century.
You want lots of jobs? Fine: ban the use of all power equipment in construction. Presto, millions of jobs, everything from digging ditches to lifting and carrying materials by hand.
Re:RoboPharmacist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 10:35 · Score: 1

I guess you've never heard about the vending machines that offer one ounce gold coins.
Or ten packs of 1 ounce, 1/2 ounce, 1/4 ounce, or 1/10 ounce gold coins.
Re:RoboPharmacist by Z00L00K · 2016-04-02 18:39 · Score: 1

And get crappier buildings because it's hard to make a modern good building without decent tools.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:RoboPharmacist by Z00L00K · 2016-04-02 18:46 · Score: 1

The difference between this machine and the industrial level is smaller than you think, the jobs in the pharmacy industry isn't the manufacturing, it's the research.
If anything this machine may create more qualified jobs.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Just curious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:06 · Score: 0

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???

Re:Just curious by damn_registrars · 2016-04-02 05:08 · Score: 5, Funny

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
I predict Cleveland Ohio will see such an outbreak this July. We may see one on a national level in November as well.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:13 · Score: 0

Ever been to a Ted Cruz event...?
Re: Just curious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:18 · Score: 0

Proof of concept with easy to synthesize pharmaceutically relevant drugs. It uses flow through tech to make the compounds not traditional dump and stir chemistry.
Re:Just curious by ColdWetDog · 2016-04-02 05:48 · Score: 1

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
Anything causing massive anxiety, depression, cardiac arrhythmias and allergies.
We have those problems all of the time. Don't you?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Just curious by MrLogic17 · 2016-04-02 07:27 · Score: 1

Lidocaine has me curious. When is a topical analgesic useful as a pill?
Re:Just curious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 07:31 · Score: 0

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
Industrialization.
Re:Just curious by bricko · 2016-04-02 07:55 · Score: 0

It does NOT print pills of any type, it only mixes liquid materials
Re:Just curious by dunkelfalke · 2016-04-02 09:39 · Score: 1

sore throat maybe?

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Just curious by Darinbob · 2016-04-02 11:14 · Score: 1

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
Probably the election of Donald Trump as president.
Re:Just curious by srmalloy · 2016-04-02 12:59 · Score: 1

What kind of "outbreak" would require any of those medications: Valium, Prozac, Benadryl, and Lidocaine ???
It's people like you that convinced the venture capitalists not to fund the Wrights' research because the Flyer didn't have a cargo compartment for passengers' luggage.
This is a first design, producing known drugs for which there is a reliable synthesis mechanism that can be employed in a "raw materials in here, drug out here" continuous-flow process. Now that they have a basic design that works, they can expand it to incorporate other synthesis processes.
Re: Just curious by hackwrench · 2016-04-02 13:51 · Score: 1

And you don't really write things on your computer, you type it
Re: Just curious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 20:17 · Score: 0

So you could just use a pipette instead?
Re:Just curious by N1EY · 2016-04-02 23:12 · Score: 1

Lidocaine would be useful in treatment of various problems. A topical lidocaine ointment would be applied to an area prior to performing any work on the area. Benadyrl might be helpful. Valium and Prozac are very different to me. I think that they selected formulas that have been around for a long time.

The future of dosage? by damn_registrars · 2016-04-02 05:06 · Score: 5, Informative

More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight. Physicians often go for the closest size of pill to make it easier for the patient; if we could have a machine automatically print the pills of an exact size every month, that could be an important change.

It would be interesting to see if it can do some of the new tamper-resistant coatings as well.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:The future of dosage? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:14 · Score: 1

So.. you're excited because the drug manufacturing industry is here to solve a problem that they, themselves caused?
Re:The future of dosage? by damn_registrars · 2016-04-02 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The pharmaceutical industry did not create the dosage problem. They are responsible for plenty of problems, but the variety of sizes of humans is not one of them.

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:The future of dosage? by Lumpy · 2016-04-02 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

The funny part is, this machine is nothing special. they have had powdered candy into pill pressing vending machines for 10 YEARS.
My daughter used to use them on vacation all the time, the kids put in the $2.00 push the buttons to drop in the different color powders and then they press go and it presses the bin of powder into hard candies for them. It is a willy wonka brand.
So the pharma companies are 10 years behind the candy companies It's very easy to convert the candy machine to a medicine machine. same size pill for everyone, you just adjust the medicine to filler ratio, drop those powders to a mixing chamber and then to the presser, Exactly how they do it in a factory. you could have a rotating die if you just want to adjust pill size, but adding filler is far easier.
Problem is, their machine either needs to have separate hermetically sealed sections for each medicine, or you will have cross contamination. and who is going to wear the hazmat suit to clean the thing? it will have medical compound dust all over the inside.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:The future of dosage? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-04-02 06:17 · Score: 1

Well, its a little more complicated that a candy press. It must be able to measure each ingredient in exact portions, evenly mix them, press them to the appropriate size (which might vary), and then be able to clear itself before new mixtures can be produced. All this must come with great precision and reliability, as someone could die if not done correctly.

I think it would be interesting more for mixing custom meds for those who take several different pills a day. Maybe they could just take one or a few of the same pills that have all the needed ingredients.

They should make these IOT connected, of course!
Re:The future of dosage? by patabongo · 2016-04-02 06:19 · Score: 2

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.
The third sentence is correct, but the first is wrong. This new machine does actually do complex chemical synthesis; for an overview of what's impressive about it (as well as which of the researchers' claims are not feasible) see this post: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi....
Re:The future of dosage? by amRadioHed · 2016-04-02 06:26 · Score: 1

As someone who has to give his cat 3/4 of a pill twice a day, this would be a very welcome change.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:The future of dosage? by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 07:12 · Score: 1

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.
No and yes: this is a proof of concept chemical synthesizer, it is making the drugs and then adding more ingredients to make the tablets. It can only make a few different drugs because that is probably all that can be made somewhat efficiently with this configuration. On the other hand you're right: it would be ludicrous to actually use this to make drugs for consumption. When it comes to making something simple like benadryl most of the complications aren't in making it safely, the complications are in legally making it safely and then proving that you are doing so. Just because a little robot can make a drug doesn't mean a little robot can submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA each time you move it to a new facility.
Re:The future of dosage? by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 07:14 · Score: 1

oops, hang on: it doesn't make pills, just liquids.
Re:The future of dosage? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 07:57 · Score: 0

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills.
Completely and utterly wrong.
From the blog patabongo linked:

As the paper says: The current system focused on liquid oral and topical dosage formulations commensurate with the on-demand approach. A complete alternative platform to current batch manufacturing would inevitably have to produce pharmaceuticals in the common dosage forms of tablets and capsules as well as sterile injectable solutions, which would require advances in downstream processing.
The machine you describe would be needed at the end of the machine in TFA.
Re:The future of dosage? by hankwang · 2016-04-02 10:06 · Score: 1

"it would be interesting more for mixing custom meds for those who take several different pills a day. Maybe they could just take one or a few of the same pills that have all the needed ingredients."
It might be difficult to do that in a reliable way. The fillers/binders and the active ingredients must be compatible in terms of grain size (for reliable, even mixing) and to result in a tablet that doesn't crumble and that dissolves quickly or slowly as desired. To make it work out for every possible combination of active ingredients may be rather difficult.
There's a surprising amount of engineering behind tablet manufacturing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Re:The future of dosage? by ArsenneLupin · 2016-04-02 10:07 · Score: 1

This new machine does actually do complex chemical synthesis
Indeed, that's what the linked article says...
Me too, I just blindly assumed that it was just packaging pre-manufactured drugs (who does RTFA these days).
So, after RTFA'ing, and given the very intriguing claims, I CTFD'd, and indeed... :-)
Re:The future of dosage? by Rutulian · 2016-04-02 12:20 · Score: 1

It's really the cost of the pharmacy that's inhibiting this, not the drug manufacturing. Compounding pharmacies were essentially the genesis of the profession, but it takes expert skills and knowledge, and is not a high throughout process. So it doesn't fit in with the fast food delivery system for drug dispensing that we use now. There are still some compounding pharmacies around for special niche cases, but outfits like cvs stick with very standardized methods and procedures so that they can hire a skeleton staff to just crank through prescriptions at a high rate per hour. The other side of a pharmacists work (drug counseling and advice) is completely neglected because if you don't meet prescription quotas you get in trouble. In-patient pharmacies aren't much better anymore because hospitals are doing the same thing, they go for patient volume and number of procedures over actual outcomes. So, crank through IVs and narcotics so that you can do more surgeries and other procedures faster. Anything custom, even if it's better for the patient, is avoided because it slows you down.
Re:The future of dosage? by jblues · 2016-04-02 12:34 · Score: 1

More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight.

Psychiatrist here: You're mostly correct, but in the case of anti-depressants, your weight just adjusts upwards to match the dose of the pill given. Until the pill stops working (people get depressed about the weight increase), and so a larger dose is given.
The important thing is to not stop taking them at any time, and, if necessary, move from a generic to patented formula. If any of this causes anxiety, tachycardia or an allergic type cough, Lidocaine, Valium and Benadryl can be added.

--
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
Re:The future of dosage? by Rutulian · 2016-04-02 15:34 · Score: 1

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them
That was my reaction (no pun intended!) too at first, but no, this is actually chemical synthesis from starting materials. It is not quite as modular as they imply from the summary. You need to clean and restandardize the system to change product. But the idea is that it is capable of following a programmed synthesis and purification strategy. The purification is actually the coolest part to me. The synthesis uses an optimized flow chemistry design (think no solvents, short reaction times, high temperatures and pressures), but this is fairly standard process chemistry. The purification is the complicated part because the machine has to do liquid partitioning, column purification, and multiple recrystallization steps without human monitoring. And it has to meet USP standards for quality control at the end. That is really cool. There was some serious engineering that went into it, so even though it has somewhat limited applicability right now, it is an impressive feat.
That said, I'm not sure where this really fits. I can't think of many situations where you would benefit from on site synthesis. Remember, you would still need to preselect which drug you want to synthesize ahead of time and have all of the materials ready to go. And it would still take anywhere from 1-3 days start to finish. So in a hospital where you might work with hundreds of drug formulations, which ones are you going to maintain this system for? And is it really easier to synthesize on site as opposed to just managing shipments from manufacturing facilities? It might be able to help in the case of manufacturing shortages, but that seems like it would be a fairly rare occurrence....
Re:The future of dosage? by NicknameUnavailable · 2016-04-02 18:14 · Score: 1

The pharmaceutical industry did not create the dosage problem. They are responsible for plenty of problems, but the variety of sizes of humans is not one of them.
Maybe so, but they didn't solve the problem either, MIT did.
Re:The future of dosage? by boa · 2016-04-02 18:47 · Score: 1

For that matter, the machine would not be producing the drugs, it would just be packaging them. The drugs go in to the machine in some sort of loose form and the machine prints them into pills. Manufacturing is serious chemistry that would be hard to do in a fully automated manner in the field.
AFAICT, the machine would actually *produce* the drugs.

The chemical reactions required to synthesize each drug take place in the first of two modules. The reactions were designed so that they can take place at temperatures up to 250 degrees Celsius and pressures up to 17 atmospheres.
By swapping in different module components, the researchers can easily reconfigure the system to produce different drugs. “Within a few hours we could change from one compound to the other,” Jensen says.
In the second module, the crude drug solution is purified by crystallization, filtered, and dried to remove solvent, then dissolved or suspended in water as the final dosage form. The researchers also incorporated an ultrasound monitoring system that ensures the formulated drug solution is at the correct concentration.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/porta...
Re:The future of dosage? by RockDoctor · 2016-04-05 07:32 · Score: 1

More drugs than people realize should be dosed in proportion to the patient's weight. Physicians often go for the closest size of pill to make it easier for the patient; if we could have a machine automatically print the pills of an exact size every month, that could be an important change.

Huh? Don't you realise that what you describe is PRECISELY dosing by weight. The physician looks at the patient's weight, estimates (from tables, whatever) the mg/kg dosage for the particular body weight, then issues the appropriate prescription for so many pills per day for the patient. For example, I'm on a medication at about 0.1 mg/kg/day ; at 95kg, I therefore need 9.5mg/day ; the pills are available at 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50mg ; I take one 10mg pill per day. Through the day, my dosage varies from about 5mg for my bloodstream to probably less than 2mg in my bloodstream. If the doctor wanted me to maintain tighter limits, then he'd have issued 2x5mg pills per day - for morning and evening. The sensitivity of effect on dosage spike is one of the issues that are examined in the middle stages of human drug trials (because animal models are simply not sensitive enough for this sort of work) and are the sort of issues that result in, for example, "film-coated" pills which dissolve more slowly, producing a longer, but less intense, peak on the dose-time curve.
It may look haphazard to you, but it is a lot less haphazard than you see.
(IANA pharmacologist. But I shared a flat with a PhD pharmacology student for a year.)

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:The future of dosage? by damn_registrars · 2016-04-06 08:43 · Score: 1

The physician looks at the patient's weight, estimates (from tables, whatever) the mg/kg dosage for the particular body weight, then issues the appropriate prescription for so many pills per day for the patient.

The problem I'm after though is that the physician is still limited to the pills that are in existence. If you have a prescription that is sold in 50mg and 100mg tablets, but the patient is best served by a 75mg tablet that doesn't exist, what is the physician to do? Yeah, you can tell the patient to cut 1/3 of their pills in half so they can take 1.5 pills each day, but that is actually quite a bit to ask of the patient and it won't have consistent results in most cases.

If the doctor wanted me to maintain tighter limits, then he'd have issued 2x5mg pills per day - for morning and evening.
That is another matter that works much better on paper than in practice. I'm not very old but I have more than once in my life been on prescriptions that needed to be taken multiple times a day. Just going from once a day to twice a day is a big change. I'd go in to work and then realize I had forgotten (or trying to remember if I remembered, depending on how hazy that morning was). Going from twice to thrice is almost an even bigger mess.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:The future of dosage? by RockDoctor · 2016-04-07 12:59 · Score: 1

Having friends who have been on anti-HIV retrovirals for approaching 2 decades now ... yes, that's difficult. That person's medication has hugely simplified over the years, but it's still a lot. Meanwhile Mum's cocktail is an ever-changing mish-mash that she depends on Dad to keep track of it.
Quick hint : if getting your medicine protocol right is a matter of life and death, then most people do pay adequate attention to it. Or they end up in hospital (free in our country), or a morgue.

If you have a prescription that is sold in 50mg and 100mg tablets, but the patient is best served by a 75mg tablet that doesn't exist, what is the physician to do?
One day you take it with breakfast ; you take your next that day at bed time ; you take your next at next day dinner time ; you take your next at the next lunch time. There are things called "diaries" (online equivalents may exist, though are useless if you don't have online connectivity) which you fill out with your medication plan and follow.. Or you die. Sufficient encouragement?

Just going from once a day to twice a day is a big change.

Yes. But what is the problem with taking your medication to work with you, in your pocket? When I go to work, we're searched for all medication and have to submit it to the site medic, then we're returned it to apply ourselves, as appropriate. (Some medications are issued one pill at a time by the medic - see "diary" comment above.) [SHRUG] Can you not manage your time?
(Incidentally, the site medic needs to know who is on what medication, in the event of injury or illness, s/he needs to know what you're on, in case it interacts with necessary treatment. Since emergency assistance or evacuation may be days or weeks away, this is necessary. Not "desirable", but necessary. It's also why the site has a surgical suite, x-ray machine, up to 5 beds, and two full-time staff (day/ night shifts).
Oh, hang on - is your medication cannabis, and it's illegal in your state?

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:The future of dosage? by damn_registrars · 2016-04-07 13:24 · Score: 1

if getting your medicine protocol right is a matter of life and death, then most people do pay adequate attention to it.
Sure, but there are a lot of medications that end up being multiple-doses-per-day ordeals that won't lead to a quick death if they get it wrong. What if the drug is for Alzheimer's? Or Parkinson's? What if it's a diabetes medication or something for a heart condition? Yeah, they can end up dead if they screw it up repeatedly but the change could be so gradual that the patient won't notice it nearly in time.

To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This leads a lot of people to experiment with their own modified dosage to save money. If your medications cost $100 a month you might try various combinations of split pills to try to stretch a month's worth of medicine out to a month and a half or more. If the prescription is $200 a month you might go even further to try to stretch it out.

Or they end up in hospital (free in our country)
You must live in a country with an intelligent medical system. Unfortunately I live in the US, where the most common cause of bankruptcy is currently medical bills. Our "Affordable Care Act" did absolutely nothing to prevent that from happening.

But what is the problem with taking your medication to work with you, in your pocket?

In this country, unless you are bringing the entire prescribed bottle with you, you are breaking the law (even if you are the only one taking it). There is also the problem of finding something suitable for carrying prescription medication, and still the problem of remembering to take it. Just because it is in your pocket doesn't mean you will remember to take it.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:The future of dosage? by RockDoctor · 2016-04-08 00:18 · Score: 1

there are a lot of medications that end up being multiple-doses-per-day ordeals that won't lead to a quick death if they get it wrong. What if the drug is for Alzheimer's? Or Parkinson's? What if it's a diabetes medication or something for a heart condition?
All of these are matters of which I have personal experience. Oh, sorry, not the Parkinsons. That doesn't stop you from getting it right.

To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This leads a lot of people to experiment with their own modified dosage to save money. [SNIP] Unfortunately I live in the US, where the most common cause of bankruptcy is currently medical bills
My sympathies. If you have the option, leave, and take as many of your families and tax payments with you. The system there won't improve until there's a revolution, and with all the gun-nuts, you don't want to be there during the revolution.

But what is the problem with taking your medication to work with you, in your pocket?
In this country, unless you are bringing the entire prescribed bottle with you, you are breaking the law.
(1) that is absolutely fucking insane. Illegal? They legislate on such trivialities? Do they not have bettewr things to worry about?
(2) Most medications are available in "blister packs" - I carry my two regulars in a water-proof pouch (because ... well, SCUBA, outdoors, I have these things laying around) as this week (fortnight, month, two months, depending on how long I'll be out of the house for). That pretty much completely obviates the identification concerns about "what is in this pill?"

(even if you are the only one taking it)
That nearly escaped me. You share medications? With someone else? Here, a prescription is for one single, solitary person. Passing a drug to someone else is just ... totally fucking insane. What is wrong with Americans that they accept this insanity?

finding something suitable for carrying prescription medication
Are you shitting me? You don't have clothes with pockets?
By coincidence, one of my HIV-positive uses the same medication manager as my mother - an array of 7x2 plastic cells for morning and evening pill selections (example). On Sundays, they fill them with the pills for the coming week (I really do not believe your thing about "illegal to carry pills outside the bottle" - that is just totally fucking insane). This works for blister packs too - cut off segments of the plastic base. Inside pocket of the jacket for my HIV-positive friend and it doesn't disturb the lay of his suit (he's gay ; very appearance-conscious) ; into the purse with other day-to-day necessities for Mum.
Really, how in the name of the living fuck could a legislature be so stark staring insane as to create legislation like your "must be in the bottle" law? And why haven't medication users sacked the senators, representatives, or whatever you call them until they got the law repealed? "Land of the Free"?

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:The future of dosage? by damn_registrars · 2016-04-09 06:17 · Score: 1

To make it worse, Americans pay some of the highest prices for medications anywhere. This leads a lot of people to experiment with their own modified dosage to save money. [SNIP] Unfortunately I live in the US, where the most common cause of bankruptcy is currently medical bills
My sympathies. If you have the option, leave, and take as many of your families and tax payments with you
Thank you. Unfortunately leaving the US permanently is not as easy as some people suggest. I know this from having looked in to it in the past. Back in 2004 when the second President Bush managed to steal his second election, I started looking to see what it would take to move to Canada. Even with both my wife and I having at least four-year degrees (I have an advanced degree beyond my BSci) moving still required a job offer for at least one of us - we couldn't move first and then start looking for work. On top of that the Canadian government incentivized employers to try to hire Canadians first, which made it that much more difficult for us to get job offers.

Now might other countries be more receptive to Americans? I can't say I looked as at the time we couldn't justify looking further (and hence moving further from our families).

The system there won't improve until there's a revolution, and with all the gun-nuts, you don't want to be there during the revolution.
The gun nuts already had their revolution. They signed off on the revolution that gave the insurance industry license to print money. Then they realized their revolution has the wrong last name on it, so they are tripping on each other to see who can be the first to repeal it and have the same exact crappy bill passed with the name of a republican on top of it.

(1) that is absolutely fucking insane. Illegal? They legislate on such trivialities? Do they not have bettewr things to worry about?
I'm not saying I agree with the law. I just happen to know it to be true. Now, it is one of those laws that one does not have a very high probability of being arrested for violating, but it is the law nonetheless. Carrying prescription medicines in non-prescription containers is against the law in this country.

(2) Most medications are available in "blister packs" - I carry my two regulars in a water-proof pouch (because ... well, SCUBA, outdoors, I have these things laying around) as this week (fortnight, month, two months, depending on how long I'll be out of the house for). That pretty much completely obviates the identification concerns about "what is in this pill?"
I'm familiar with blister packs. Here some medications are available in them, some are not. It varies widely for a variety of different reasons. One sticking point on that though is that the blister packs generally do not have the prescription label attached to them, which makes it basically impossible to confirm that the person carrying the blister pack is the patient for whom the medication was prescribed. And if you are in a situation where the pill needs to be cut, the blister pack isn't very useful at that point. I would say that a blister pack would be useful in less than 10% of situations in this country; perhaps they are more common for medications elsewhere.

(even if you are the only one taking it)
That nearly escaped me. You share medications? With someone else? Here, a prescription is for one single, solitary person. Passing a drug to someone else is just ... totally fucking insane
I apologize for not phrasing that more clearly. What I was after is that one of the presumptions is that people who are carrying prescription medications around in non-prescription containers are involved in the illegal sale of such drugs. It isn't necessarily a case of sharing as much as selling on the

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Hey wait a minute.... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2016-04-02 05:10 · Score: 2

Just how far are we from Niven's autodocs now? We could medicate the psychopaths among us, so instead of becoming CEOs that steal and plunder ever more, we could neutralize their harmful tendencies humanely, and finally usher in the post-industrial leisure society?

--
Mostly random stuff.

Re:Hey wait a minute.... by newcastlejon · 2016-04-02 05:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just how far are we from Niven's autodocs now?
A very, very long way. Autodocs were more about fully automated surgery and organ replacement rather than dispensing drugs. I particularly remember a case where one of the Wus is exposed to vacuum and the autodoc aboard ship replaces both lungs without any human intervention; one would have to assume that people are flying around with all manner of organs stored aboard just in case. Before we have anything like that I think we'll see something more like an automated pharmacy that takes blood samples, analyses them and manufactures/dispenses exactly what the patient needs... even medication for paranoid schizophrenics.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Hey wait a minute.... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2016-04-02 05:43 · Score: 1

"A very, very long way."
OK, but there's a way? Just kidding. I know it's just a figment of a terrible sci-fi writer's imagination.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Hey wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 06:35 · Score: 0

There is nothing in physics which says it is impossible, so it is definitely something that may happen in the future.
Re:Hey wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 10:57 · Score: 0

The list of things not forbidden by physics is quite long. But the X-15 is half a century old, yet I can't fly at Mach 6 if I wanted to.
Re:Hey wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 12:24 · Score: 0

... medicate the psychopaths ...

Is there a medicine that dulls an instinctive belief that "the world owes me"?
As long as people are rewarded for having more than others, taking from others will always be an unavoidable and even encouraged behaviour in society. Look at 'Brave new world', where the savage didn't want a world of selfishness and equality, he wanted a world of responsibility and inequality that he considered morally correct. In the real world, the same argument is made by governments and religions. Anyone wanting to neutralize those, is the minority, just like the savage.
Re:Hey wait a minute.... by Agripa · 2016-04-03 09:36 · Score: 1

Before we have anything like that I think we'll see something more like an automated pharmacy that takes blood samples, analyses them and manufactures/dispenses exactly what the patient needs... even medication for paranoid schizophrenics.
That was the most common use for NIven's autodocs besides giving a manicure. The portable docs carried by the first Ringworld expedition were not any more capable and had limited consumables. They could diagnose various conditions through blood tests, administer medications from their limited selection, and notify with a check engine, um, check human lamp that further service is required.

I particularly remember a case where one of the Wus is exposed to vacuum and the autodoc aboard ship replaces both lungs without any human intervention; one would have to assume that people are flying around with all manner of organs stored aboard just in case.
Carlos Wu promptly suffered from organ rejection with the "universal donor" set of spare lungs that the simplified ship's autodoc carried so they had to rush him to where a hospital grade autodoc existed. This experience motivated Carlos to design a better autodoc which was featured in stories later in the Known Space timeline and retrospectively earlier in Niven's timeline.

Be careful who you stand behind in line too by goombah99 · 2016-04-02 05:15 · Score: 1

Okay, that was really funny.

I was also thinking it is probably important to check out the guy in line in front of you and maybe switch places if it looks like psycho active or hormone replacement case.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

If you have the chemical compounds... by Nova+Express · 2016-04-02 05:16 · Score: 1

...this is better than using manual pill molds plus drying/baking...how?

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:26 · Score: 0

In case of a nuclear war, you could rip out the internals and climb inside.
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

This is a proof of concept flow synthesizer that makes the APIs (chemical compounds) and then formulates them with excipients to make the pills. Flow synthesis is definitely going to become more and more useful, but for emergency situations it's absolutely useless. You'd be much better off sending a 50 gallon carboy full of drugs then an easily damaged frig size synthesizer, drums full of solvents and reagents, a generator and gas to run it, etc. It's like sending a 3D printer on a camping trip instead of a box of plastic cutlery.
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by ColdWetDog · 2016-04-02 05:51 · Score: 1

It's like sending a 3D printer on a camping trip instead of a box of plastic cutlery.
You say this like it's a problem.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 07:19 · Score: 1

Hey, it's your backpack. By all means, carry a cow instead of steaks.
Re: If you have the chemical compounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 07:40 · Score: 0

A live cow is much easier to move than several hundred pounds of beef. I am not certain your example holds very well.
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by Hognoxious · 2016-04-02 07:48 · Score: 1

Cows carry themselves.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 09:57 · Score: 0

This is a proof of concept flow synthesizer that makes the APIs (chemical compounds) and then formulates them with excipients to make the pills.
Except the pills part. It creates liquids.
Re: If you have the chemical compounds... by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 10:51 · Score: 1

Not if you only need two steaks.
Option 1. Rent a trailer for the cow. Drive to the national park. Hike up the mountain with the cow. Butcher it and remove two steaks, leaving a whole dead cow bleeding all over the place. Move to a different campsite that isn't full of bears and flies eating the rest of your cow.
Option 2. Drive to national park. Hike. eat.
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 10:52 · Score: 1

So which do you take camping?
Re: If you have the chemical compounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 12:16 · Score: 0

Spherical cows roll very easily.
Re:If you have the chemical compounds... by Hognoxious · 2016-04-02 22:41 · Score: 1

A horse, because I'd look ridiculous riding a cow.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re: If you have the chemical compounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-03 03:36 · Score: 0

Unless you're traveling uphill. A vacuum might help a bit.

Why not just load gelcaps with powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:21 · Score: 0

With a paperback book sized device, anyone can load hundreds of capsules per hour. Getting the dose exact can be tricky, but if you mix the right amount of filler in with your powder, it just works.

Re:Why not just load gelcaps with powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:27 · Score: 0

I work IT for a chain of stores that includes a compounding pharmacy. That's how we do it. Pill machines are extremely over-regulated and hard to get even by legitimate users. For my blood pressure medicine, i used to have to take 2/3 of a pill each day. It sucked every third day trying to take the powdered bits of the previous two pills. Gel caps with a custom dose made my life much easier.
Re:Why not just load gelcaps with powder? by tomhath · 2016-04-02 05:43 · Score: 1

This is slashdot. This is an article about 3D printing. That is all.
Re: Why not just load gelcaps with powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 06:00 · Score: 0

Those republicans love to over regulate everything.

Suddenly Hacking Got More Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:24 · Score: 0

The local drug dealer just became an ATM.

What happens when the form factor shrinks further by Sla$hPot · 2016-04-02 05:24 · Score: 0

Imagine when the form factor shrinks so much that the machine can be implanted directly into the body.
Or perhaps as small as a pill you can swallow.
A pill that can make a pill.
Wan't the red pill or blue?
It doesn't matter. It'll do what ever TF you like

Atomic 3D Printers by transami · 2016-04-02 05:29 · Score: 1

So how much longer until we have actual Atomic 3D Printers?

--
:T:R:A:N:S:

SomaStream - Drugs Made Exciting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 05:30 · Score: 0

Drug concentrates made into tablets ... or a delicious carbonated beverage.

Good bye Martin Shkreli by squiggleslash · 2016-04-02 05:44 · Score: 2

Can it be used to economically produce Daraprim, and also would Martin Shkreli be hurt in any way if one of these machines, programmed to make Daraprim pills, were to fall on his head?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 05:53 · Score: 2

A refrigerator size synthesizer will be a hideously expensive way to make drugs which then can't be legally sold except on the black market. I.e., the FDA has to approve each manufacturing site individually.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by ColdWetDog · 2016-04-02 05:53 · Score: 2

We don't need anything to make Daraprim. We just have to get the FDA out of the 19th century and understand that the REST OF THE WORLD can manufacture perfectly fine chemicals. Even places like Columbia and Afghanistan. It's not hard.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by Lumpy · 2016-04-02 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not they are out of date, its that the FDA is owned and paid for by big US pharma companies.
The FDA STILL says that getting drugs from canada for a discount is DANGEROUS!
Canadian drugs are the EXACT SAME drugs in the USA and made on the same line, their government just doesn't allow the companies to violently rape their citizens on price.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 07:25 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, the 19th century, back when anyone could slap a label on bottle and call it medicine. Which is still what happens if you don't have a safety agency that actually tours the plants, reads the QC documents, tests samples, and then bans/fines companies that try to fake it. We do import drugs and chemicals from all over the world. Just like drugs and chemicals made here, they can be absolute shit if no one is doing due diligence.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by mi · 2016-04-02 07:57 · Score: 1

In other words, too much freedom is bad for you, citizen. The omniscient and benevolent government officials will protect you. Even if you already have a terminal disease, that will kill you in 6 months, you can not be allowed to take a drug, until we've evaluated its safety for 5 years.

Just like drugs and chemicals made here, they can be absolute shit if no one is doing due diligence.
You, sir, can be a homicidal maniac and must not be allowed on the street until a diligent government official has determined, you are not a threat to others. Presumption of Innocence is outdated...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 10:35 · Score: 1

Even if you already have a terminal disease, that will kill you in 6 months, you can not be allowed to take a drug, until we've evaluated its safety for 5 years.
Well, you could have a look at how long it takes the FDA to turn around applications on one of the accelerated approval tracks or how they relax safety standards for cancer, or how most cancer drugs fail in phase III because it turns out they are ineffective. But hey, let's just look at what happens with "too much freedom". Mostly: is the goal to create and distribute effective drugs or is the goal to sell whatever you want? Here are the two basic problems.
1. OK: you have cancer. Would you rather enroll in a clinical trial with
2. Let 's let companies sell the drugs before they are approved. This situation would quickly make Shkreli look like an underachiever. How would an investor controlled company approach R&D if a drug could be a source of revenue before you prove whether it works? Simple: gather some hopeful looking phase IIa info to make a drug sellable, then start selling it. Keep running eternal phase III "trials" designed to keep people buying the drug, not to actually prove anything. Look up Stanley Burzynski if you want to see the pioneer for this type of business model. Meanwhile, companies that are doing legit R&D can't get funding from investors and can't find patients to enroll in the trials, because actually seeking approval would be too risky.

You, sir, can be a homicidal maniac and must not be allowed on the street until a diligent government official has determined, you are not a threat to others. Presumption of Innocence is outdated...
I'm not so concerned about your freedom to put random chemicals into your body (though not happy that one way or another, we're in the same insurance pool). I'm more worried about what happens to our medical system when doctors and companies have the freedom to put random chemicals into people's bodies. So more like: You can't have a job driving a bus on public streets and take people's money without a driver's license, and you can't just make and sell buses without bothering to figure out if they do in fact have brakes.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 10:41 · Score: 1

gah, editing:
1. OK: you have cancer. Would you rather enroll in a clinical trial with less than 50% chance of receiving the drug, or just ask for the drug? If most people just choose to take the drug, does the clinical trial ever enroll enough patients to determine its endpoints? Hint: getting enough patients to enroll is already a huge problem in some areas of drug research. Also, if you think that random doctors writing case reports about their uncontrolled, open label uses of an investigational drug yields data that can be used to prove efficacy or safety: think again. It quickly becomes a situation where some data is much worse than no data at all.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by mi · 2016-04-02 11:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would you rather [...]
Now, you are offering me a choice. FDA does not. And I don't need to "look into it" — I have a very close friend waiting for FDA's approval of "experimental" treatment for him. He's been waiting for over 18 months now.

I'm more worried about what happens to our medical system when doctors and companies have the freedom to put random chemicals into people's bodies.
Doctors would not have that freedom my way either. But people would.
Neither your way nor mine is bullet-proof — indeed, nothing would be. But my way preserves people's freedom, whereas yours takes the freedom away. This alone ought to be enough for my way to be accepted as better, but that's not all.
Your way is not remarkably safer either! The FDA was created after some spectacular abuses of patients' trust by "doctors" and "chemists", FDA has since had scandalous failures of its own, when the approved medicines and advice had to be withdrawn and reversed. As forewarned, we surrendered an essential liberty in exchange for temporary safety — and lost both...

It quickly becomes a situation where some data is much worse than no data at all.
Yes, yes, and too much freedom is too dangerous. Yours is a Statist argument — the State government knows best, citizens ought to defer to their benevolent and omniscient betters. And until those betters have enough data, the citizens should keep dying — because taking care of oneself causes chaos.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 12:23 · Score: 1

So you're ok with follks making and selling fraudulent and ineffective drugs? How exactly would you suggest preventing the practice under your model? If it's "let the market decide", how does the market decide when no one (not the pharmas, not the docs, not the patients, not the lawyers for the class action and malpractice suits: no one) has the information necessary to determine which drugs are worthwhile?
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by mi · 2016-04-02 13:46 · Score: 1

So you're ok with folks making and selling fraudulent and ineffective drugs?
Any and all false advertisement must be prosecuted. But only after they are made — not per-emptively.

How exactly would you suggest preventing the practice under your model?
The same way it is prevented now in most other markets except, for some reason, healthcare.

If it's "let the market decide", how does the market decide when no one (not the pharmas, not the docs, not the patients, not the lawyers for the class action and malpractice suits: no one) has the information necessary to determine which drugs are worthwhile?
How does the FDA know today? Oh, they don't! So they ask for evidence and trials and whatnot, right? Well, some consumers may choose to wait for such trials to conclude and for such evidence to emerge. But no one would be legally obligated to.
And why is the government the sole arbiter? I find "Consumer Reports" to be more trust-worthy, for example. You may find the endorsement of "Good Housekeeping" to be more comforting. Others may find Amazon's ratings to be the most reliable. The private — non- and for-profit alike — certification bodies can themselves compete for both reputation among consumers and manufacturers' willingness to put up with their requirements. But none of it ought to be mandatory — unless, of course, you are the kind who believes, as I suspected before, that "too much freedom is dangerous".

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by SNRatio · 2016-04-02 14:16 · Score: 1

Any and all false advertisement must be prosecuted. But only after they are made — not per-emptively.
Again - how would anyone prove it?

The same way it is prevented now in most other markets except, for some reason, healthcare.
Because in healthcare there's really no way to prove it without running trials. Are you expecting class action lawyers to run them on contingency?

How does the FDA know today? Oh, they don't! So they ask for evidence and trials and whatnot, right? Well, some consumers may choose to wait for such trials to conclude and for such evidence to emerge. But no one would be legally obligated to.
Oh. Trials. Run by whom? Companies won't - why bother if they can sell the drugs without them? A well run trial just means a risk of having the drug proven unsellable. Consumer Reports? OK. Do you have ~$100B per year to spare to fund that operation, or will they do it based on magazine subscriptions?
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by mi · 2016-04-02 14:32 · Score: 1

Again - how would anyone prove it?
If no one can prove it, then it is not fraud, is it? Presumption of innocence, right? Right?!

Oh. Trials. Run by whom? Companies won't - why bother if they can sell the drugs without them?
Presumably, the consumers want to see these trials and would not buy the medicines (in sufficient quantities) without them — so, yes, companies would do it. But if that assumption is not valid, then FDA's continuing existence is tyranny — it protects us from things, we do not want to be protected from.
Either way the agency ought to be abolished.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by Dog-Cow · 2016-04-03 00:25 · Score: 1

Presumption of innocence, right?
That concept is applied (in theory), by the legal system, when prosecuting alleged criminals. It is not used by ordinary people deciding whether to chance taking some poison just because they have a tummy ache.
Your use of the phrase in this discussion informs me that you are a naive idiot or a shill. Either way, please trial every medicine that comes your way.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by mi · 2016-04-03 04:03 · Score: 1

It is not used by ordinary people deciding whether to chance taking some poison just because they have a tummy ache.
My opponent spoke of fraud, which is a crime — in the very legal sense of the word.
People deciding, whether or not to take a particular medicine would have a large number of options — being legally barred by the government from exercising some of those options is a sign of tyranny, not a free country.

you are a naive idiot or a shill
Darling, behave yourself and don't use name-calling in an argument. Otherwise you come off as a moron and will only have like people for company...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good bye Martin Shkreli by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-03 16:44 · Score: 0

So you're ok with folks making and selling fraudulent and ineffective drugs?
Any and all false advertisement must be prosecuted. But only after they are made — not per-emptively.

How exactly would you suggest preventing the practice under your model?
The same way it is prevented now in most other markets except, for some reason, healthcare.

If it's "let the market decide", how does the market decide when no one (not the pharmas, not the docs, not the patients, not the lawyers for the class action and malpractice suits: no one) has the information necessary to determine which drugs are worthwhile?
How does the FDA know today? Oh, they don't! So they ask for evidence and trials and whatnot, right? Well, some consumers may choose to wait for such trials to conclude and for such evidence to emerge. But no one would be legally obligated to.
And why is the government the sole arbiter? I find "Consumer Reports" to be more trust-worthy, for example. You may find the endorsement of "Good Housekeeping" to be more comforting. Others may find Amazon's ratings to be the most reliable. The private — non- and for-profit alike — certification bodies can themselves compete for both reputation among consumers and manufacturers' willingness to put up with their requirements. But none of it ought to be mandatory — unless, of course, you are the kind who believes, as I suspected before, that "too much freedom is dangerous".
Yes, because that works so freaking well for the homeopathy, spirituality and other fringe medicinal markets. People get desperate when they think their lives are on the line. Removing the FDA will create a wild west in the drug market where companies will form, create a threat, provide a treatment and disappear into the blue yonder when people realise that they have been scammed. Allowing a free market in drugs will destroy society as we know it.
You do know that methyl-amphetamines were sold/prescribed as weight loss drugs before it was realised that they were addictive and can cause psychotic episodes and other very negative side effects (trials would have shown these side effects and may have nipped the illegal market for these drugs in the bud before it was born).
The FDA protocol for approving drugs for sale in the USA is born of a reactive process. A approved drug is found to cause addiction, best add a test to the requirements for approval. A approved drug is found to have serious long term side effects? Best add something to help recognise that issue. A approved drug is found to cause mental issues, best add a test for that. And so on...
Tl;DR; People don't think clearly when they perceive their life to be on the line (real or imagined). Drug companies/people will abuse this and cause massive chaos if there is no process to weed out this kind of crap

And All I Can Think Is... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 06:12 · Score: 0

Welcome to Quik-E-Med, can I take your order?

Body already has drug factories ... by perpenso · 2016-04-02 06:17 · Score: 1

Imagine when the form factor shrinks so much that the machine can be implanted directly into the body.

We sort of already have such machines in a very specialized sense. The pancreas creating insulin, pituitary gland producing endorphins, the adrenal gland creating adrenaline, etc. So it shouldn't take that much imagination.

New labelling... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 06:19 · Score: 0

...This pill produced on machines used in processing peanuts and other nuts.

A Challenge to Store Pills?? by nukenerd · 2016-04-02 06:22 · Score: 1

the challenges in supplying medications, for example regions without facilities for storing pills

How hard is it to store pills, FFS? So they will need a facility to store this machine instead then. Sales talk at its finest.

Not all that useful. by BarbaraHudson · 2016-04-02 06:49 · Score: 1

Producing less than 50 pills an hour? This would not be any good for anything but the smallest drug stores, and they have no need for it. This would be awful in an epidemic.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Re:Not all that useful. by MrLogic17 · 2016-04-02 07:24 · Score: 1

Then put another machine on the other side of town.
That's kind of like saying that a gas powered generator is useless because it can only power one house.
Re:Not all that useful. by mi · 2016-04-02 08:00 · Score: 1

Producing less than 50 pills an hour?
3D printers aren't especially high-yield either...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Not all that useful. by BarbaraHudson · 2016-04-02 10:37 · Score: 1

Do you have any idea how many pills a city needs? The average adult has 12 prescriptions per year, and these pill machines can't fill many of them (insulin, liquid antibiotics, etc.), BTW - you'd be far better off hooking up a diesel locomotive to the mains than "getting another generator." Almost 2 MW of electricity, but it made a mess driving it off the tracks and 1000 feet on city streets.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Not all that useful. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-03 17:11 · Score: 0

Do you have any idea how many pills a city needs? The average adult has 12 prescriptions per year, and these pill machines can't fill many of them (insulin, liquid antibiotics, etc.).
Those statistics are a bit misleading to be quite honest. It appears that it is actually "there is an average of 12 prescriptions filled per adult in the USA". In other words, if you take the amount of prescriptions filled and divide it by the amount of adults in the USA then you get 12 prescriptions per adult".
Take, for example, the average diabetic. For insurance coverage, they will need, a prescription for a blood glucose machine, a prescription for the strips, a prescription for the lancets (needles for punching a hole in the finger to get blood for the blood test), a prescription for insulin, and a prescription for needles. The machine is a single fill but the rest are done in 3 months supply. So that makes 1 + 4 x 4, 17 filled prescriptions per year per Type A diabetic. For a type 2 diabetic (one that is associated with genetic and obesity factors), you can take off the insulin and needles and add at least one drug with a maximum of 3 month supply per refill to that list.
Personally though, last year I got 2 prescriptions filled, one for 6 tablets of a high strength painkiller and one for a course of antibiotics. If you increase that to the last 10 years then you could probably add 2-3 more filled prescription to that list - mostly courses of antibiotics. I have never not filled in a prescription that I have been given (apparently that is pretty common in the USA - 13 prescriptions per adult given yet only 4.3 average filled) as here in Australia, we are rarely prescribed anything that isn't needed.
Re:Not all that useful. by BarbaraHudson · 2016-04-04 16:08 · Score: 1

The reason that the majority of prescriptions in the US aren't filled is because of $$$.
Nowadays, you don't need a prescription for the blood glucose machine - the test strip manufacturers supply them to the pharmacies for free, because the test strips are where the real money is. So, 2 different insulins (regular for each meal, and nph for overnight), insulin pen tips (anyone still using syringes???), test strips, finger prickers. And the machine can't fill any of those prescriptions, same as in your Type 1 diabetes example. That's 5 per month . I have an additional 5 prescriptions filled every month on top of that. Used to be more, but they were for either temporary conditions, or I reacted badly.
It's much easier for a pharmacist to receive a box filled with their daily drug order than to tend to all these machines, filling them, storing the results in bulk bottles with mandatory labeling, and ensuring that the raw materials are properly handled. Production lines are way cheaper to operate.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Not April Fools joke? by Sperbels · 2016-04-02 07:26 · Score: 1

I read about this yesterday, assumed it was BS.

Why not refrigerator-sized, um, refrigerator? by pz · 2016-04-02 08:29 · Score: 1

OK, this is a medium-sized pill processor that can be made up to dispense, out of some level of raw materials, pills. Some of the raw materials (whether they are fully-synthesized, nearly-so, or in base stock) will need to be kept cold in places where this sort of thing makes sense.

So instead of shipping one of these do-dads that can do one thing at a time (and takes HOURS to switch over to a new product), why not ship a refrigerator filled with boxes of fully-finished pills? Surely the reliability is higher. Since refrigerators are mature technology, I have to imagine that they would have more fractional volume available for carrying pills than a complicated synthesizing machine.

For a permanently installed location, you would have to ship raw materials to the unit. For a refrigerator, you would have to ship pills. Is there a significant difference?

Can someone convince me that the idea isn't just a boondoggle? What advantages does it have?

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.

Pick and place drugs by John+Jorsett · 2016-04-02 09:25 · Score: 1

While we're on the subject of automation for pharmaceuticals, I've been wondering lately if druggists' jobs couldn't be a lot more automated. Instead of dispensing and counting out pills by hand, why couldn't it be done like surface mount devices: tape and reel? Have your pick and place dispensing machine automatically mount the correct pill reel, count out the right number of pills into a bottle, label it, and you're done.

Order! by nospam007 · 2016-04-02 09:31 · Score: 1

If it can print Vicodins, I'll take 2.

Re:Order! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 11:13 · Score: 0

attention, citizen! federal scientists have determined that only filthy drug addicts need medications like vicodin! report to your local cognitive behavioral center for re-education immediately!
Re:Order! by Z00L00K · 2016-04-02 18:49 · Score: 1

Hello House!

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Call me when it prints $20 bills by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 11:14 · Score: 0

Pills, shmills. I want a refrigerator-size machine that can print $20 BILLS on demand.

And I don't mean an ATM.

Push a button and money comes out.

RTFA by swschrad · 2016-04-02 11:46 · Score: 1

the machine makes suspensions, drugs in liquid.

in case of outbreak or loss of supply chain, where will they get their raw materials? this is not ready for prime time by any stretch.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

MDMA too? by GuB-42 · 2016-04-02 12:34 · Score: 1

Make this machine produce MDMA pills and I can guarantee its success.
MDMA is also known as ecstasy, or molly.

Re:MDMA too? by Z00L00K · 2016-04-02 18:47 · Score: 1

Heroin, PCP, THC etc... It would become very popular.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:MDMA too? by GuB-42 · 2016-04-03 16:17 · Score: 1

PCP is not that popular anymore. It seems that ketamine takes all the love.
But seriously, for an emergency supply of drugs, opiates (like heroin, aka. diamorphine) and anesthetics (like ketamine) definitely have their place. And while these specific substances are usually not the first choice for human intervention, they are still used in a medical setting.
As for THC, well, it literally grows on trees. You don't really need a machine for this.

Re: Jobs by hackwrench · 2016-04-02 13:49 · Score: 1

Or just do what made workers in other countries so sought after in the first place and devalue the currency... But that's just crazy talk!

hadoop by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-02 16:32 · Score: 0

Thanks for post
hadoop
ipl 2016
Hdfs Commands
love shayari

What's the point? by ChrisMaple · 2016-04-03 13:08 · Score: 1

If you have a steady supply of electricity, the refrigerator-sized machine needed to supply pills is called a "refrigerator". If you don't have a steady supply of electricity, a complex gadget like this will be worthless in a disaster.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

How about instead.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-04 09:14 · Score: 0

There already exist "refrigerator machines" that package and dispense pills from conventional packaged containers and allow doctors to dispense all the meds you need prescribed without a secondary and wasteful trip to a pharmacy. These are routinely used in Asia all the time. By packaging the pills you also don't have to fiddle with figuring dosages or bottles or schedules: one dose is one packet.

Honestly the US is in the fucking dark ages when it comes to healthcare for no good reason other than graft and rackets. Health care in the US has nothing to do with health or with care!!

Slashdot Mirror

Refrigerator-Sized Machine Can Print Pills on Demand (dailymail.co.uk)

113 comments