Slashdot Mirror


Baking Soda Shortage Has Hospitals Frantic, Delaying Treatments and Surgeries (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Amid a national shortage of a critical medicine, US hospitals are hoarding vials, delaying surgeries, and turning away patients, The New York Times reports. The medicine in short supply: solutions of sodium bicarbonate -- aka, baking soda. The simple drug is used in all sorts of treatments, from chemotherapies to those for organ failure. It can help correct the pH of blood and ease the pain of stitches. It is used in open-heart surgery, can help reverse poisonings, and is kept on emergency crash carts. But, however basic and life-saving, the drug has been in short supply since around February. The country's two suppliers, Pfizer and Amphastar, ran low following an issue with one of Pfizer's suppliers -- the issue was undisclosed due to confidentiality agreements. Amphastar's supplies took a hit with a spike in demand from desperate Pfizer customers. Both companies told the NYT that they don't know when exactly supplies will be restored. They speculate that it will be no earlier than June or August. With the shortage of sodium bicarbonate, hospitals are postponing surgeries and chemotherapy treatments. A hospital in Mobile, Alabama, for example, postponed seven open-heart surgeries and sent one critically ill patient to another hospital due to the shortage.

250 comments

  1. Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My local Office Depot has some "Commercial Grade" Baking Soda available, made by some other supplier named "Arm & Hammer". It's in stock, and $1.39 for a pound of it.

    1. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      My local Office Depot has some "Commercial Grade" Baking Soda available, made by some other supplier named "Arm & Hammer". It's in stock, and $1.39 for a pound of it.

      I think the summary neglected to mention this is "Pharmaceutical Grade" baking soda. Which would need approval from the FDA to be used as medicine.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      And will Office Depot certify that it is safe for medical use and is free of contaminates? I mean who do we sue when people start dying, Office Depot, the hospital or you for suggesting it?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by magarity · · Score: 1

      I think the summary neglected to mention this is "Pharmaceutical Grade" baking soda. Which would need approval from the FDA to be used as medicine.

      Other than handling and packaging requirements any idea what exactly makes sodium bicarbonate "pharmaceutical" vs "commercial" besides millions of dollars and years of approval processes?

    4. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by caferace · · Score: 1

      It does seem a little silly though, that it's fine we eat it. Hell, some people brush their teeth with it. But "Oh no, don't use the substitute in an emergency!".

    5. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      "The solution must be pure and sterile because it is injected into the bloodstream."

      From deep inside the New York Times article.

    6. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Arm & Hammer has been a trusted name for 150 years. I'll take my chances.

    7. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by omnichad · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wouldn't trust commercial grade, but the FDA could save a ton of lives by allowing hospitals to buy food-grade and sanitize it and create their own solutions. The FDA and malpractice insurers would rather go after hospitals for trying to save lives than to recognize what's best for everyone.

    8. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Purity.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    9. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handling, packaging, and 99.999% purity costs a lot! You must have never heard of engineering.

    10. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tracking.

    11. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't sanitize contaminate unfortunately.

    12. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. Purity. Guaranteed absolutely free of anything that could be dangerous if injected.
      2. Sterility. No microbes. Hermetic seal container made free of life at the factory.
      3. A paper trail saying where it was made, when, and who shipped it where, for use in identifying any contamination that does occur.
      4. Someone who can be sued if all the above fails.

    13. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Looking at some of the things it's used for, the risk seems to be worth it in some cases.

    14. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The solution must be pure and sterile because it is injected into the bloodstream."

      From deep inside the New York Times article.

      Based on anecdotes from a little family pharmaceutical company founded by my great-great-grandfather, but now long gone via corporate mergers and acquisitions, making solutions that are pure enough to safely inject into the blood stream is really hard. Apparently even ridiculously low amounts of trace impurities can trigger weird immune responses leading to fevers and other complications. The technical term back in the day was pyrogenic/non-pyrogenic.

    15. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if the option is nothing or commercial grade, wouldnt commercial grade be the better option???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      Let's rephrase the question: What exactly makes pharmaceutical grade bicarbonate better than this chem lab reagent grade sodium bicarbonate, besides millions of dollars and a years-long grind of FDA approval?
      https://www.fishersci.com/shop...

    17. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Brushing your teeth and injecting it (or equivalent like adding it to dialysis to augment a kidney's natural excretion) is wildly different usage. Think about it a bit more.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    18. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Sepsis ain't no fun.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    19. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Liability for the hospital?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    20. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The option is delaying surgeries and running less effective dialysis. It's not a great long term option, but it is a viable short term option. (obviously with risk and consequences)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    21. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by sit1963nz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is :
      - ensuring everything is done in a sterile environment
      - ensuring its purity
      - testing of batches
      - tracing and tracking the whole process
      - precise weighing and packaging
      - ensuring everything is in tamper proof packaging
      - auditing of the whole process

      All the equipment used in the manufacture, testing, packaging and the people involved are also traced and certified, with everything going back to calibrated National Standards and tested annually (or more). The temperature, humidity, raw materials, etc etc etc etc etc are all tracked right through the whole system in triplicate.

      This is not a "throw a teaspoon full in" and it will be all OK.
      Ingesting something (and we all swallow a low of bugs, insects, dirt, etc every year) is totally different to having it injected into the blood stream,

    22. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Other than handling and packaging requirements any idea what exactly makes sodium bicarbonate "pharmaceutical" vs "commercial" besides millions of dollars and years of approval processes?

      Purity as well as the certification process. Same difference between Certified Unix(TM) and Unix. If it doesn't matter to you that the certification was met, you can use commercial grade (like as a cleaner). If it matters to you that all necessary protocols were followed including ones on contamination, then you need to get the pharmaceutical grade.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      well, go shoot up some toothpaste and tell me how well that works out.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    24. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusingly, one of the owners of Arm & Hammer was Armand Hammer.

    25. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      You say "purity and packaging" as if it's no big deal. It's a very big deal for something you're going to inject into someone's bloodstream. Take some common fungal spores which might not even count as contamination in food, inject them into patients and you could be facing horrific medical consequences on a massive scale.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's used as a solution to clean wounds and mixed with injectable anesthetics to make them less painful. Considering how much sh*t people inject on a regular basis, including bathtub caulking* and >a href=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/6-women-hospitalized-for-butt-enhancement-injections-with-bathtub-caulking/1#.WSNi3uvyvDA>industrial silicon oil, I doubt that there'd be enough of an impurity to make a difference considering the very small quantities used.

      * Warning: gross picture (but still on of the less gross ones)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    27. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's restate "purity" in terms that someone at your level will understand. It has less shit in it that shouldn't be there. Kind of important when you're using it in medical procedures, not so important in industrial procedures.

      It's a perfectly simple concept to understand so I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble. If the stuff available from Wacko's Online Emporium was as pure as what's required for medical procedures, there wouldn't be A FUCKING SHORTAGE.

    28. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      That's fine right up until you realize the arm and hammer baking soda was stored in the same warehouse as raw uncured pork bellies and now has trace amounts of botchulism in the baking soda, and now you're injecting it in to people's blood streams.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    29. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Do you know a Mike Rowsoft by chance?

    30. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll Alert!

    31. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      The solvay process doesn't have the impurities that the mined sodium bicarb has. The ammonium bicarbonate is removed from the resulting precipitate by heating it; all the other products of the reaction except the solid sodium bicarbonate are gases. As long as the raw ingredients (dry ice, brine, and ammonia solution in water) are not contaminated, what you'll get won't be either.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    32. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are remarkably few bacteria that can survive in such a basic environment (8.3 pH), and I don't think they would survive in the much less basic environment inside the human body. Contamination with heavy metals (e.g. aluminum oxide) would be a more plausible concern.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    33. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Amusing or terrible parenting? Obviously intentional.

    34. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the ones that can survive, most likely you really absolutely do not want in your more neutral ph bloodstream

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    35. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US DSCSA (Track & Trace) only follows ownership change, not physical location. This is your regular prescription mess observed by FDA.
      Now CSOS (controlled substances) regulation follow actual orders and shipments and DEA cares about that.

    36. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically for baking soda, anti-caking agent.

    37. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a chemist, I can't agree that it is "really hard" - that is, if we distinguish between what is difficult and what is complex, between what is tedious and what requires consistent discipline, then it is complex, tedious and requires a high amount of discipline and consistency. For those who find this kind of rigidity "easy", it is "easy". Not cheap, but easy.

    38. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes without saying that the major difference is that they company paid millions to the FDA in official, lawful bribe money to get the stamp of "purity".

    39. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because postponing chemotherapy and open-heart surgery is so safe, amirite?

    40. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Other than handling and packaging requirements any idea what exactly makes sodium bicarbonate "pharmaceutical" vs "commercial" besides millions of dollars and years of approval processes?

      The commercial stuff is cut with baby laxative.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's fine right up until you realize the arm and hammer baking soda was stored in the same warehouse as raw uncured pork bellies

      If you get outta town to where you're breathing dirt kicked up by off-road vehicles, you're probably breathing botulism spores. But they don't produce a viable culture unless they are in the right conditions. Now, ask yourself, can botulism grow in baking soda? And even if it can, can it get through a plastic bag?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the ones that can survive, most likely you really absolutely do not want in your more neutral ph bloodstream

      Is it most likely, or really and absolutely? Or just bullshit? Because if it can even survive 8.3, it's not likely to be comfortable at 6.5.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by slew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Purity.

      Not exactly. Both food grade and pharma grade sodium bicarbonate are greater than 99% "pure". Many industrial producers make both food and pharma grade sodium bicarbonate, some of them on the same line and processed to the same purity level...

      The difference is that Pharma grade sodium bicarbonate is specifically tested to assure very small levels of certain specific impurities** mostly to minimize potential issues with inconvenient formation of various precipitates and other complications in equipment (e.g., hemodialysis), or your body.

      All that product testing/certification isn't cheap and is completely unnecessary if you are simply eating it. For example, if 0.05% of the impurity was NaCl or MgCl, that would *bad* in your blood, but if you ate the typical amount of bicarbonate, you wouldn't even notice that impurity.

      **USP has specific tests for impurities such as Chloride (0.015%), Sulfur (0.015%), Aluminium (2ug/g), Arsenic (2ppm), Calcium (0.01%), Magnesium (0.004%), Copper (1ppm). Iron (5ppm), Ammonia (20ppm), Organics (0.01%), etc...

    44. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FDA already did it's job. They set the standard. How much mouse feces do you think they allow into pharmaceutical grade versus the arm and hammer stuff?

    45. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pray to Thor almighty you are not any kind of medical professional. Or responsible for anything particular at all.

    46. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, so buy the stuff at Wacko's Online Emporium and purify it!

    47. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically for baking soda, anti-caking agent.

      I'm wondering what is available in other countries for sale. You'd still need a paper trail and it would still need to be hospital grade. I'm guessing the stuff used in Canada and similar first world countries has to be very close to our quality.

      That doesn't make it idea, but it still is likely better than nothing...

    48. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad news, he's your new HMO director.

    49. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      And malpractice insurance.

    50. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product. A drug maker's FDA interaction does not end when the drug gets approved for use. Pfizer cannot just take industrial grade sodium bicarbonate and sell that instead because it will fail to pass the inspections and audits. Even if the owners are evil there are going to be some employees saying "boss, there's something wrong with this batch, it's clumping up and has impurities, we should toss it out before someone gets hurt".

    51. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I would suggest going to another country, but apparently it's illegal to import medicine (for Americans).

    52. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They're not out of sodium bicarbonate, they just have shortgages. So they will use the supplies on the most important cases, if your surgery can be delayed then they'll delay it as needed.

    53. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ordinary Walmart product is pure enough for human consumption, as a tooth powder and stomach remedy. My example is chemical reagent purity.

    54. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      If they're using it in open heart surgery it needs to be handled and packaged in contamination free environments.

    55. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Pfizer and Amphastar are probably tied into global supply chains for this, i doubt that there's a magical world of abundant pharmaceutical-grade baking soda just over the border.

    56. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by SeriousTube · · Score: 1

      About the only os that has hardware still in production that is unix certified is mac os so it's meaningless anymore.

    57. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by clovis · · Score: 1

      Because the FDA doesn't care about the purity of the manufacturer's product all that much.

      Oversimplified, but here's kind of how it works.
      In general, as far as the FDA is concerned, it is all about the manufacturing process.
      The FDA does not look at whether one manufacturers version is as pure as the other; the testing of new manufacturers of a drug isn't about purity, it is about determining equivalent biological activity.
      The reason is that two pills containing the exact same chemical and purity can have different biological activity depending on pill hardness, the coating that allows the pill to get past the stomach, and the pill and coatings resistance to humidity or temperature changes, and, of course, contaminants.

      And speaking realistically, the complex chemicals you take may have exactly the same amount of the active chemical, but there will always be contaminants, and the contaminants vary according to the process and equipment used. Those contaminants may affect the shelf life and a 6month old pill from a French company may have greater biological activity than one from a German plant even though they both acted the same when new.
      That's the sort of thing that happens and that costs boatloads of money to discover in testing. That's why it's all about the process, not the pill.

      The FDA generally does not do assays and testing (boatloads of money), the manufacturer does that. The FDA requires detailed logs of the manufacturing process and equipment. The FDA monitors the process by inspecting the logs and doing on-site inspections, and it's an ongoing process because many, if not most, drug manufacturers have been caught cheating.

      The manufacturer cannot deviate from the process as was initially approved without the FDA's approval, nor can anyone else just say "it's exactly the same" and sell the product. And the FDA does't say "oh well, it's probably OK" for simple drugs. One law to rule them all.

    58. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      "delaying surgeries" .. plural forms of a word does not mean all possible instances. I clearly did not say "every surgery must be delayed" and I don't see how I could have even implied that.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    59. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There were many posters implying that because surgeries were delayed that we should use off the shelf cooking or industrial sodium bicarbonate. After seeing several of those I assumed yours was falling into that category.

    60. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You mean besides mainframes which is still being used by big banks?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    61. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by piojo · · Score: 1

      Would contamination be restricted to microbes that can survive in a basic environment even if the baking soda is dry? I thought antimicrobials generally had to be solution/liquid/gas to be effective.

      And that's not even getting into spores which can't thrive in a basic environment, but wouldn't be killed either.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    62. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's an injectable, not an oral consumable. So, chemically, it's no big deal, but it has to be produced in an FDA-licensed factory to guarantee sterility. Go ahead and try to repeal that, and you'll have thousands of people telling you that drug companies want to sell arsenic-laden rat dung as medicine, and the only thing holding them back is the FDA, so why do you want to kill children? It's not entirely wrong, but it's way overblown, and nobody can measure how many people die because the FDA didn't approve a drug that might have helped them, or (as in this case) because treatment was delayed due to shortages.

    63. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      No, he bought the company after the name was already established.

    64. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Apparently he bought that share to make people shut up about his name. Though he was named after a different Arm & Hammer according to this source.

    65. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If you've no other option, sure. It wouldn't be the first time doctors have improvised treatment in a disaster situation using whatever comes to hand. But such practices should be avoided where at all possible, and it's not that desperate yet.

    66. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by slew · · Score: 1

      I would suggest going to another country, but apparently it's illegal to import medicine (for Americans).

      The top producers and consumers of sodium bicarbonate are China and the USA. Europe is the next largest and they consume nearly all of their own production.
      I'm not so sure that many would want to follow your suggestion of importing pharma grade sodium bicarbonate from China...

    67. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Libertarians should be locked in an asylum on sight.

    68. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell a police state apologist baizou!

    69. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, it has to be a liberal conspiracy of Big Pharma/Teh Evil Government/Alien Lizard Overlords.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    70. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      if the option is nothing or commercial grade, wouldnt commercial grade be the better option???

      | know slashdotters love binary choices, but it's just possible that there is a slightly more nuanced risk assessment going on, and that delaying an operation rather than risking infection is the better clinical decision.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    71. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      My local Office Depot has some "Commercial Grade" Baking Soda available

      Personally, I only smoke crack that’s been rocked-up with pharmaceutical grade baking soda, but I get that not everyone is a connoisseur.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    72. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      I have a bottle of that very same stuff in my lab right now, same grade, from the same supplier. Notice the the terms "Reagent Grade" and "Assay Percent Range 99%"? Those mean that, in reality, it's not exactly high quality.

      What's the other 1%? Well, on the side of the bottle is listed a "certificate of analysis" that includes, among other things, lead, copper, sulfur, and chloride ions along with their approximate concentrations. Still want that in your body? Well, for what I use it for (creating buffer solutions) I don't care if those are present, but if I need the ACS/analytical/pharmaceutical grades, those are going to cost significantly more (they start at around $60 for the same quantity rather than $8 for that bottle of low purity stuff you linked to).

    73. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      It's not FDA approval of the initial product so much as FDA approval of the ongoing use of the product.

      Your comment started strong, but then...

      The problem is the intricate web of approved manufacturers, raw material suppliers, processing/manufacturing equipment makers, etc etc was not implemented with sufficient redundancy along the chain because it gives the government more opportunities to seek graft and votes from those wishing to enter the market and from those already entrenched who wish to cripple possible competition and stay politically/regulatorily-competitive among themselves, as well as political control using the power of approval/denial and an artificially-limited market. If you're a big pharmaceutical or medical device maker you're going to donate to whatever campaigns, pay whatever K-Street lobbyists, and donate big money to whichever charity organization/think-tank front for whichever power-broker they need to buy to stay in business and turn a profit. Include a revolving-door to "friendly" regulators, lawmakers, etc in government who cash in on a "consultancy" job with those they formerly held power over after leaving government as another major reason much of the government regulatory landscape is a nonsensical spaghetti-mess that is the current US pharma and medical device/technology fields.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    74. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Read it again - the few contaminants are easily removed. Most of them go away on their own, since they're gases, not solids, and the only one that isn't is removed by heating and it too becomes a gas. For the quantities needed, it's more than good enough.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    75. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      The ordinary Walmart product is pure enough for human consumption, as a tooth powder and stomach remedy. My example is chemical reagent purity.

      Yes, but is it pure enough to be injected via an IV? Lots of stuff enters through your mouth, how much of that would kill you if injected? Chemical reagent purity doesn't necessarily meet the same standards as injectable purity.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    76. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And price.

    77. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooooosh!

    78. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

      The ordinary walmart product isn't being directly mixed with the content of your bloodstream.

      There are a number of barriers between the digestive tract and your internal liquid systems.

    79. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Is there a big overlap between antivax and libertarians? Or, maybe, people that promote antivax, but themselves have all their shots.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    80. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that may be the answer. Lots of chemicals sold by international companies specializing in chemicals (e.g., Fisher, Baker) have switched their raw suppliers from Western sources to China. As we all know, you have to ride herd constantly on Chinese suppliers because they will take any shortcut they can to save money.

      It wouldn't surprise me if the latest batches failed QC testing here in the States even after supposedly passing QA at their source. Even more fun, if FDA inspectors found problems anywhere in the supply chain it may take a while to remedy. With only two end product suppliers problems at one can cause a shortage very fast.

    81. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      I call bullshit on the whole "pharmaceutical grade bicarb is so spesh-ul" argument. If you're in medicine in the UK, guess where you can order this grade, and at what price?

      https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sodiu...

      Note the big red caution that no supplier will ship this product to the US. Since the bloodstreams of British [patients are going to be the same as US patients, the reason for this is that US pharma is setting us up for another Daraprim.

      If they get away with this one, we might as well fill our bathtubs for when pharma engineers a shortage of water.

    82. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As another chemist, the trick is to constantly prove that your work is unassailable from several fronts including technique, standardization, consistency and, more important to FDA, documentation. If any of these things fail the whole thing stops.

      This is obviously what Pfizer has done - stopped production because something failed to meet its requirements. I'm glad they've put safety above profit.

    83. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by MercTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since hospitals quit having formulating pharmacies and went to outsourcing for common stock items like sterile saline, sterile bicarbonate solution, and sterile distilled water; they have been at the mercy of third party suppliers. Such common items are really a low profit item for suppliers that they don't stockpile such.

      The trend to outsource instead of having employees and equipment to do things in house has been working its way into industry since the 1970s. And a hospital is very much an industrial installation when you get down to daily operation.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    84. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Because postponing chemotherapy and open-heart surgery is so safe, amirite?

      It's safer than operating like you're on a 19th century battlefield.

      This isn't software where you can slap something together with zero discipline of any kind and "patch it later".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    85. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Either that or prison.

      Doctors have found that when they get rid of medical malpractice that they still have to worry about going to prison for gross negligence. Apparently that doesn't just magically go away because you've managed to avoid one aspect of personal responsibility.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    86. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Mainframes and Unix are entirely two separate and competing entities. They have their own operating systems.

        If a mainframe is running a Unix "VM", it's probably Linux.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    87. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      By definition, reagent grade must be absolutely pure. You can't get more pure than reagent grade, you can only label it differently and charge more for it, which is what pharmaceutical grade really means.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    88. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great knowledgeable posts like this make this place worthwhile.
      Anon due to mods.

    89. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's racist!!!

    90. Re: Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by slew · · Score: 1

      I suspect that may be the answer. Lots of chemicals sold by international companies specializing in chemicals (e.g., Fisher, Baker) have switched their raw suppliers from Western sources to China. As we all know, you have to ride herd constantly on Chinese suppliers because they will take any shortcut they can to save money.

      It wouldn't surprise me if the latest batches failed QC testing here in the States even after supposedly passing QA at their source. Even more fun, if FDA inspectors found problems anywhere in the supply chain it may take a while to remedy. With only two end product suppliers problems at one can cause a shortage very fast.

      Hospira (a Pfizer company), which is the one that has the shortage, has had a recent history with quality control issue (problems with cardboard particulates in injectable vancomycin).

      FWIW, in an email, a spokesman said the shortage is due to issues with a third-party supplier but not the API supplier. (API means active pharmaceutical ingredient), so it isn't likely to be the actual soda ash / bicarbonate supplier that is the issue per se, but perhaps some other company that supplies testing materials, or perhaps some packaging supplier. As I mentioned the USA is one of the largest suppliers of sodium bicarbonate, it seems unlikely that there is a simply sourcing problem with the basic ingredient and not something fixed by going to China.

    91. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not so sure that many would want to follow your suggestion of importing pharma grade sodium bicarbonate from China..."

      You assume that this is not already the case. I don't know about sodium bicarbonate but many of the drugs that "cant just be imported from another country" at a cheaper price were actually produced in China to begin with.

    92. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.

    93. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. There are numerous standards. Reagent grade is never 100% pure. Some standards have thresholds for toxins or sterility that are not specified in reagent grade specifications.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    94. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I say that ALL mainframes use Unix. However, if there are mainframes, there's a chance it is using Unix still. You of all people should know that mainframes ran Unix or VMS originally.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    95. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Any good references for this information?

      Someone with mod points, please mod my earlier comment down so it doesn't spread misinformation.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    96. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Purity.

      Backed up by paperwork. Plus, the paperwork can be traced back to reference samples from that batch from the packaging plant, and those reference samples will be available when people are investigating your operation in 50 years from now.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    97. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case, sodium bicarbonate is not a big profit center for Pfizer. I don't think they're sending out lobbyists to keep others from getting into this market.

      Pharmaceutical companies don't typically enter the market depending on a single product to keep them afloat.

      Bicarbonate of soda would be only one minor side-product for a competitor as well as the other, major, cash products they would need to offer to be competitive, same as the established players. Keeping competitors out of the market for medical-grade bicarbonate of soda is simply a part of the collateral damage caused by collusion between the pharma industry and government to suppress new competition.

      Government isn't the solution, government is the problem. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are; 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" --- Ronald Reagan

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    98. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to find any LOL. My gf works in biochem/pharma and talks about the standards. For say an injectible solution it would need to be sterile (with a specific testable definition of sterile) and would have a constellation of acceptable levels of various metals and other molecules. They test everything and have to keep records on batches. Lots of stuff doesn't pass. ACS grade might specify 99% pure but you could have something be 1% MRSA or methylmercury and still meet that standard.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    99. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Huh, I always thought reagent stock had to be exceptionally pure to avoid side reactions. Really interesting to learn that this is not the case.

      There's probably a reason I didn't get into chemistry in any real capacity.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    100. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It's funny, biochemistry is really different from standard chemistry. They don't understand why or how a lot of things work, which is why a lot of these things have standardized manufacturing methods and testing. You wouldn't think that 2 compounds that appear to be identical but made with different processes would work differently but they very much do. Tiny variations in the inevitable impurities can make the difference between something causing a nasty reaction when injected and everything being fine. Another big variable is shelf life. Some processes give product that is quite stable, others give product that is very perishable.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    101. Re:Pfizer and Amphastar the only option? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Piss off, Alexander.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  2. The Free Market at Work by bobschneider8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this shortage happening in countries with "socialized medicine", or just in free market America?

    1. Re:The Free Market at Work by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are always shortages - it's just not apparent to the average Slashdotter. This page lists current and past drug shortages going back to 2010.

      Here's the Canadian version.

      There seems to be a similar site for the EU, though the page says most shortages are handled by the individual national governments. I'd check the French or German health websites, but I'm not good in those languages. The UK seems to have ceased tracking shortages.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I dunno - Why don't you ask Venezuela?

    3. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "free market" never existed, it's a construct of man's imagination, but let's set that aside for a moment while we talk about something more serious - Life or death serious. Health care. Physicians follow a code to do no harm. Drug companies have no such compunctions. There is no business imperative, regulation, general guideline or established best practice to maintain production of CRITICAL, EVERYDAY PRODUCTS that the world needs lots of. There is NO safety net. There is no planned economy government entity saying "well, if we really need to have bicarb, we need to make it ourselves and maintain that production capability." There is nothing like that for any substance except petroleum.

    4. Re:The Free Market at Work by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this shortage happening in countries with "socialized medicine", or just in free market America?

      We don't have a free market medical system. We have a cronyist monopoly enforced by laws written by hospitals and pharma company. If the medical system produced computers, a PC would cost about the same as a Lamborghini.

    5. Re:The Free Market at Work by avandesande · · Score: 1

      The medical industry in USA is far from a free market. Try buying insulin online from Canada.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:The Free Market at Work by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Right. So before laws prevented / regulated it you're saying that one person couldn't sell another a person a piece of bread or a cup of coffee?

      Free market is not anarchy. Menger, von Mises, Milton Friedman were not anarchists. You're playing the true Scotsman card and it's really tiring to hear this BS.

      Drug companies have the compulsion of reputation, the same as other businesses Go to the ... shhh ... the "DARK WEB," a place where there is no recourse to gov't and what separates one seller from another. Drum roll please. .... It's their reputation. And, contrary to your tirade reputation is a business imperative.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    7. Re:The Free Market at Work by PPH · · Score: 1

      The medical industry

      Try every industry. All markets are protected to a greater or lesser extent here. We live behind an economic Iron Curtain.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If YOU had read the article you would see that there are only two major suppliers. That IS a problem that a planned economy would solve, although I am not endorsing a planned economy by any means, just stating that in some places a "state sponsor" is a prudent and necessary thing.

      My point was that we do this for crude oil and basically few other things on any sort of comparable scale. And oil alone will not sustain any economy or country.

      Now, you were calling me a Marxist. Continue. I'd like to hear your soul poured out defecating on some set of ideals you think I am espousing here.

    9. Re:The Free Market at Work by MrTester · · Score: 1

      ... and Helium.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

    10. Re:The Free Market at Work by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >"Is this shortage happening in countries with "socialized medicine", or just in free market America?"

      If we had a really free market (with safeguards to prevent monopolies or near-monopolies), then plenty of other companies would make such "drugs" available, too (in this example, it is not really a drug, it is just a commodity). Besides, even if a shortage occurred in such a market, it would send the price up and other companies would rush to market with completing product and pricing would go down and supply would then increase then eventually stabilize.

      In a perfectly free and elastic economy (and part of that freedom *is* preventing monopolies with take away from free trade), supply and demand and pricing is completely self correcting. If anything, the more "socialized" a place is (with more government controls on supply and demand, limiting competition, restricting price changes, tampering with demand) the more likely shortages will occur.

      No system is perfect. But free markets have generally been proven to work better than anything out there.

    11. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, as well as any country whose supply contracts will allow a "temporary" price increase to help counter this sudden drought.

      Other countries remain unaffected.

    12. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is literally the Free Market at work.

      It purchased legislators to bypass the concept of being regulated.

    13. Re:The Free Market at Work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We don't have a free market medical system. We have a cronyist monopoly enforced by laws written by hospitals and pharma company. If the medical system produced computers, a PC would cost about the same as a Lamborghini.

      Explains Microsoft Windows: the complexity of a Lamborghini but the performance of a Yugo.

      Monopolies and oligopolies almost always end up sucking. Newly arrived x-opolies may be okay, but over time they grow sloppy, evil, slow, and/or anti-competitive due their size (influence power) and lack of competition.

      The problem is that medical services may require economies-of-scale such that having say 7 competitors in a given market, especially rural areas, is just not realistic. Medical services are just not the same market profile as manufacturing light-bulbs.

      There are so many liver specialists within driving distance. Having 7 liver specialists for 7 different insurance companies within driving distance for rural areas probably means many liver specialists would be sitting idol (or trolling slashdot). Sure, fewer could contract out to share their services, but they'd probably be able to charge high or be lackluster because they are just about the only game in town. Thus, lack of competition comes right back into play. The problem of lack of competition hasn't been solved even with 7 insurance co's.

    14. Re:The Free Market at Work by martinX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Happens in Australia, too. We have a large, well developed public hospital system in each state.
      http://www.smh.com.au/national...

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    15. Re: The Free Market at Work by Endloser · · Score: 1

      So it would still be cheaper than a Mac?

    16. Re:The Free Market at Work by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Thanks to regulation, I can safely buy no-name generic OTC drugs at the store without any fear and at an extremely low price.

      I'd rather not be the person who died to mediate a brand's reputation on the market.

    17. Re:The Free Market at Work by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that medical services may require economies-of-scale such that having say 7 competitors in a given market, especially rural areas, is just not realistic. Medical services are just not the same market profile as manufacturing light-bulbs.

      Personnel are not even so much the problem. Medical salaries are only a small percentage of total costs, and if a real shortage develops we could always turn on the H-1B spigot.

      It's more about the total opaqueness of all pricing: nobody knows what anything costs. Pharma keeps insisting that "nobody actually pays $120,000 for Harvoni." My brother didn't, for example - but what did his insurance plan actually pay for it, and why aren't we allowed to find out? And if nobody actually pays it, why is that the advertised price?

      We expect higher prices for newly branded compounds, but how can the supply of generic drugs, which anyone can make, be monopolized? What can't we have our prescriptions filled on the world market, through Amazon?

    18. Re: The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read The Jungle by Sinclair Lewis.

      Realize the story is real, the names were changed to protect the guilty from being hunted down and put in the abbatoir.

    19. Re:The Free Market at Work by dk20 · · Score: 1

      try importing text books from overseas and see what happens.

    20. Re:The Free Market at Work by martinX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well expressed. I recently looked into the price of rattlesnake antivenin in the US and was astounded to see it costing up to $10000 per vial. A little searching revealed the cost of production was estimated to be about $14.
      Link to an article discussing the costs:
      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

      Link to a research paper by the person responsible for creating the antivenin:
      https://www.researchgate.net/p...

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    21. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I import them all them, from Library Genesis. Nothing ever happens.

    22. Re:The Free Market at Work by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but a lot of people would have those Lamborghinis. You wouldn't just buy a computer though. You'd make computer payments. You wouldn't just buy stuff online. You'd make a $0.50 copay for each $100.00 iTunes or Netflix purchase because nobody actually buys directly from online retailers. I'm just guessing at what things cost, because the price list is secret. You could apply for a new computer right around the same time every year, along with a bunch of other people, unless your computer broke down our you got married, or needed a computer for your child, or Congress had gas. Then it's hard to say. You wouldn't be on the internet unless it was in your network. Maybe your state would only support the Bing network, unless you wanted to pay a lot extra. You could Google if you really wanted to; but then your next computer payment would be higher. You get free antivirus though, so you use that to feed some kind of delusion that this is all working out for the best. Sometimes reality intrudes and you get depressed. Then you fork over a copay for a program from Big Gaming that may or may not cause your computer to self-destruct. If that happens, it's GAME OVER.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    23. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's a damn good reason that nobody with a single ounce of sanity would trust a desktop computer to have control over life-critical things. The nearest non-medical analogy is spaceflight class hardware, which is also in the "this absolutely must work, one hundred percent, and there's no second chances" category. And shocker, spaceflight-class computers will run you about $25000-$1M... for slightly more processing power than a late 1990s PC. The electrical, mechanical, and code logic reliability requirements make space flight qualified (and medically-rated) systems horrifyingly expensive for a good reason.

      The free market is purely a reactive system. Like an operational amplifier, it doesn't predictively prevent error, it responds to and suppresses error: This still requires error to be present. In the case of human life, it's de facto been decided that allowing anything like the Therac-25 disaster to happen again - in short, to allow any error that can be predicted to exist - is not acceptable and that instead, all systems must be designed to pass guidelines that, to the greatest possible extent, will prevent any mistakes from occurring in the first place.

    24. Re: The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free market days people in rural areas don't need quality specialist care. So live in shitsville, die of sepsis. City slickers can get shot up by bankster/gangsters, and be walking broke, but healthy and infection free a couple days later.

      That's the free market.

    25. Re:The Free Market at Work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Personnel are not even so much the problem...It's more about the total opaqueness of all pricing: nobody knows what anything costs.

      There was a push to codify all billable medical expenses for better billing and cross-org comparing, but many in the industry complained about the complexity and learning curve of the systems. There's either too darn many treatments to categorize, or the categorization method/philosophy(s) needs a rethink.

    26. Re:The Free Market at Work by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Market size stops being a problem when you look to the entire planet instead of just one country. A multi-national treaty to standardize drug testing would let people buy drugs from any country, and therefore ensure effective competition and low prices. They appear to be dealing with copyright first though, might be a bit of a wait.

    27. Re:The Free Market at Work by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tired meme. Venezuela failed because they married their economy to oil. Narrow product focus can also mess up capitalism. In fact, Adam Smith's "Comparative Advantage" encourages putting too many eggs in too few baskets. It can be quite profitable in the shorter term, but bite hard later. Focusing on "big ticket" manufacturing slammed the USA "rust belt", for example, because it stopped being their comparative advantage.

    28. Re:The Free Market at Work by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I guess you never heard of sulfanilamide

    29. Re:The Free Market at Work by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A lot of the problem is that even doctors don't always know what the medicines cost. Thus they prescribe something that is more expensive than an alternative because of marketing. Drug A does the job, but drug B does the job with an easier to swallow pill because it's coated, but drug B is double the cost. The doctor not knowing the cost prescribes drug B in all cases.

      Patients also need to learn to question the doctor and ask if there are alternative drugs available, such as generic brands. Even if insurance covers the bill, the doctors and patients still need to push back and try to use cheaper alternatives otherwise the costs will continue to rise.

    30. Re:The Free Market at Work by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      When there are only two suppliers, who can talk to each other, and those are the only people in the market selling said thing, they don't need to worry about reputation. Also note that the problem didn't become clearer earlier because of confidentiality agreements. How is reputation meant to regulate a market, if companies can legally apply Non Disclosure Agreements, and take you to court for talking about problems?

    31. Re:The Free Market at Work by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      HMO insurance drug prices are very carefully planned out soothe and ease the flow of money from Medicare into insurance provider's profits, while minimizing the amount of leakage into other part of the health system (such as doctors and hospitals).

    32. Re:The Free Market at Work by clovis · · Score: 1

      If you think you know how the free market would work in drug manufacturing, then you need to read this:
      http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...

    33. Re:The Free Market at Work by clovis · · Score: 1

      I guess you never heard of sulfanilamide

      Nor Thalidomide. From 1962:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    34. Re: The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean "The Jungle," by Upton Sinclair, Jr? Or some other book by Nobel laureate, Sinclair Lewis?

      The first does make a strong argument for regulation and monitoring, in the case of meat packing on industrial scales as practiced in turn of the 20th century United States.

      Applicable to current topic... how?

    35. Re:The Free Market at Work by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Informative

      That system exists, and it's why medical billing is a speciality in and of itself. It's called the ICD-10, and has been around for decades. The pushback is because the latest revision, which went into effect two years ago, is hyper-specific to the point of absurdity.

      Pecked by a chicken? There's a code for that: W61.33. But don't you dare get that confused with getting pecked by a turkey or bitten by a duck, which are W61.43 and W61.61 respectively. Don't like your in-laws? That's Z63.1. Injured? It's very important for proper diagnosis to know if you were at the library at the time (Y92.241) or at the opera (Y92.253). Shredding it on water so awesomely that your skis catch on fire? Not only is there a code for that, there are three sub-codes to describe the diagnosis in greater detail. I am not making this up.. You know all those Imperials who died when those two Star Destroyers collided in Rogue one? That's V95.43. And it only gets more wacky from there.

      Now do you see why there's been some pushback?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    36. Re:The Free Market at Work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What if being pecked by a chicken has different risk & diseases than being pecked by a turkey? And if the difference is not tracked, how will anyone know the risk is different?

      The code could "require" a parameter which is the animal type, but then each typist will enter it differently, making statistical analysis more difficult. One will enter "chicken", another "poultry", another "rooster", etc.

      Specificity by itself is not necessarily bad. Although, accurate encoding may require quite a bit of time from doctors, clerks, and patients. The trick is either finding a happy medium or improving encoding assistance/UI technology,.

      (Farm animal injuries are probably fairly common in rural areas. Us suburban folk may overlook the frequency.)

    37. Re: The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Comparative advantage was David Ricardo's theory of trade, not Adam Smith's.

    38. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right but that's dodging the question isn't it?

      There's a big difference between shortages of drugs that are competing for limited production time, and a common household product.

      This is not something for which there is any reason for there to be a shortage, and TFA confirms that the shortage is due to a contractual dispute, rather than production limitations.

      I'd tend to agree with the OP, that the fact it's a contractual dispute is much more to do with the heavily for-profit nature of the US medical industry.

      The UK's NHS typically does quite well at ensuring supply, because of it's size, few drug manufacturers want to piss it off, because it has been willing to shut out vendors who have misbehaved in the past. No company is going to get in a dispute with the NHS that will shut them out from all future expensive drug contracts over something as stupid and trivial as baking soda. Compare and contrast to a health system such as the US has, and it's all about profit with no one willing to stand up for the consumer of the health services, hence, disputes like this.

    39. Re:The Free Market at Work by lifeisshort · · Score: 1

      May be it is not so much free market at work as it is Just-In-Time logistics not quite working. As the logistical chains get longer and more complicated, they get much more fragile. Minimising working capital tied in reserve supplies being the bean counters imperative in latest decades will eventually lead to more severe consequences.

    40. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK has ceased tracking anything that makes the Conservatives look bad, so this is no surprise.

    41. Re: The Free Market at Work by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Did you mean "The Jungle," by Upton Sinclair, Jr? Or some other book by Nobel laureate, Sinclair Lewis?

      The first does make a strong argument for regulation and monitoring, in the case of meat packing on industrial scales as practiced in turn of the 20th century United States.

      Applicable to current topic... how?

      It's a counter-argument to the libertarian "any government regulation is always bad" position being espoused by several posts here.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:The Free Market at Work by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Right but that's dodging the question isn't it?

      Not at all - I provided some resources to help people get started answering that question. I'm not gunning for a PhD, so I'm not going to do the study myself :)

      confirms that the shortage is due to a contractual dispute

      My public school had a strike when the teachers walked out for a contractual dispute. Government is not immune from this.

      The UK's NHS typically does quite well at ensuring supply,

      We'll never know if that is true or not, since they deliberately stopped tracking shortages.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    43. Re:The Free Market at Work by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the point I was talking about in the original post. Again - not one free market advocate. Not Menger, not von Mises, not Rothbard, not Friedman is for anarchy. Each says there is a strong and valuable roll for government in the market place.

      Don't take my word for it. The easiest way to see this for yourself is to watch some Milton Friedman videos on youtube.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    44. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's an efficient medical system: patients and doctors wasting time looking up specifics of drugs. Isn't this what pharmacists are for?

    45. Re:The Free Market at Work by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      There is nothing FREE MARKET about US healthcare.

      Its the most heavily regulated industry their is. Don't blame the market for problems almost certainly attributable to government induced distortions.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    46. Re:The Free Market at Work by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That's retarded. You don't prescribe an drug because it's cheap. You prescribe it because it's effective. Drug A & B are not in any way the same. Even if they are targeted therapies for the same defective gene, they are going to have wildly different results and side effects.

      This kind of bullshit is what leads to stupid insurance companies forcing crap on you that doesn't work at all and might even make your condition worse.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:The Free Market at Work by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      We already have a market as large as the EU. Chances are that they don't have the excess capacity to handle a shortage on our end and vice versa.

      Besides, this stuff is already made all over the world to begin with. This shortage may be due to a factory in India that failed it's FDA inspections and got taken offline.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    48. Re: The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^^ Somebody please mod this up

    49. Re:The Free Market at Work by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the attempt here is to codify every method by which a person could be harmed, and have that data available for subsequent analysis. From that standpoint, knowing which birds are biting the shit out of people, or where people were when they were injured is very important. If this system is going to be useful it needs to be thorough, and that's going to lead to a ludicrous number of edge cases, but it's not intended to be memorized.

    50. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not the system that patients are sorely lacking. ICD-10 tracks diagnosis. What patients need is a way to track treatments and services along with their cost.

    51. Re:The Free Market at Work by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Again - not one free market advocate. Not Menger, not von Mises, not Rothbard, not Friedman is for anarchy.

      Friedman and von Mises certainly weren't anarchists, but I'd thank you not to slander Rothbard, who actually was consistent in his opposition to the use of "political means" (i.e. government). Of course Rothbard never advocated for the popular misconception of anarchy as a chaotic free-for-all without rules of any kind—just the absence of rulers empowered to act without regard for the universal rules grounded in reciprocation which apply to everyone else.

      But don't take my word for it. Just read what Rothbard had to say about government in The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

      Unfortunately von Mises was only a minarchist, which is to say that his positions on government were inconsistent at best. No doubt the contradiction inherent in relying on an institution empowered to employ the violence denied to everyone else was not lost on him, but unlike Rothbard he was simply unable to conceive of a better way. At least he did consistently argue against any form of intervention in the market itself, and limited the role of government to pure defense from violent criminals and external attackers. If that were all it did there would be no issue, of course, but he then proceeded to contradict himself by arguing first that the institution of government should have a monopoly on providing said defense, and also that it should have the power to impose what he considered "necessary" taxation—which makes the government no different from those criminals it is charged to defend against.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    52. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the poster is referting to drugs are out of payent/copyright that have generic versions available at much lower prices, this is quite common, exactly the same drug, different pricing.

    53. Re:The Free Market at Work by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Hey,

      Fair enough. But I wouldn't consider Rothbard an anarchist any more than I would consider Ayn Rand. The key phrase is "just the absence of rulers empowered to act without regard for the universal rules grounded in reciprocation which apply to everyone else."

      That being the case - there are rules. The rules may be simple. Red light means stop. Green light means go. Or much more complex scenarios such as the use of courts to adjudicate contract disputes. This is not anarchy. This is a proper function of government.

      It's the attempt to equalize results of outcome (not to mention personal enrichment through gov't largess) that things fall apart.

      Re von Mises. He was more of a number crunching economist than a philosopher. He was combating the labor theory of wealth, and intent on showing that proper pricing cannot take place absent a free market.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    54. Re:The Free Market at Work by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to the case where drug A and B are the SAME drug. Drug patents don't last forever, and when they expire the original drug maker reformulates the product in slightly different ways, then repatent the new forumation. The original formulation can be manufactured by others though. So on the one hand you've got a newer formulation that may be improved and is great for some people but there's still the cheaper form of the drug.

      There is a value add to the new formula. Ie, an easy to use pill form versus the original injection. Other formulations include mixing in other drugs (anti nausea agent). But not every patient needs the new formulation. If the patient does not need the new value add then the cheaper alternative should be considered. Ie, take the chemo plus a second anti nausea pill, rather than the more expensive combined medicine, unles of course the patient is sick and tired of taking 100 pills a day. The choice can always be discussed with the patient, and the patient should be asking if there are generic alternatives.

    55. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This particular incident appears to be American-only. The general pattern is well-known across the world, though. For instance, the Dutch has artificially limited the medicine prices, with two predictable results: whenever there's a minor shortfall somewhere in Europe, they are often first to be rationed, and secondly the Belgians are buying cheap medicine in the Netherlands which further depletes limited supplies. Now actually running out of medicines is a bit rare as the Dutch can just buy the more expensive medicines in Belgium, where the higher prices mean guaranteed supplies.

      So, yes, shortages happen everywhere, and socialized medicine can backfire even if prices are generally lower.

    56. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shredding it on water so awesomely that your skis catch on fire? Not only is there a code for that, there are three sub-codes to describe the diagnosis in greater detail.

      The three sub-codes are to indicate the first treatment ("initial encounter"), followup treatment ("subsequent encounter"), or something else caused the water skis to catch fire that injured you ("sequela").

      Granted, the ICD-10 code system is now too-highly specific to injury causes -- who needs to track that burning water skis caused your injury? -- but the previous coding system was far too vague, allowing more fraudulent billing.

    57. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are always shortages - it's just not apparent to the average Slashdotter. This page lists current and past drug shortages going back to 2010.

      According to the linked page, it doesn't seem like a shortage of the drug but of glass syringe components:

      Pfizer has sodium bicarbonate injection on shortage due to manufacturing delays related to obtaining glass syringe components.

    58. Re:The Free Market at Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently looked into the price of rattlesnake antivenin in the US and was astounded to see it costing up to $10000 per vial. A little searching revealed the cost of production was estimated to be about $14.

      Unless you are making it in the home, you won't be able to produce ANY product for $14. Even then you would probably have to neglect the real costs of materials and space, logistics and transportation to get the number that low.

      You are not helping matters by making a shallow comparison which any competent thinker will reject. Learn to not compare Apples and Oranges.

      The cost of production over N items is only a valid computation about real goods if you actually produce (and sell) N items - and even then you still have to consider the lost opportunity costs of not producing something else.

      There are lots of problems in medicine, and in medical pricing, but we're not going to help matters with bogus arguments about mythical costs of production.

    59. Re: The Free Market at Work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Does the source really matter much in this case? If so, please explain.

    60. Re:The Free Market at Work by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about them or anarchists. I specifically responded to your "Drug companies have the compulsion of reputation" argument. When there are only two choices, industry collusion, and Non-Disclosure Agreements then reputation is basically moot. People don't have a real choice.

    61. Re:The Free Market at Work by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I would not rely on reputation alone. But reputation is important. The key aspect here is company A saying this product will do "x". It better do "x".

      I would go so far as to say that if your commercial goes "5 out of 6 dentists approve". You better have surveys that show that (and not a survey o 6 dentists).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    62. Re:The Free Market at Work by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing in favor of no government authority. I responded to the statement that there is no such thing as a free market. Obviously there is.

      Government does have a role.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  3. Re: Clean coal is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not go all the way and produce it in nuclear power plants?

  4. Surely every hospital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has a 3D printer so they can just make more?

  5. Just in Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you manage your supply chain to maximize profit.

    1. Re:Just in Time by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      So, you're in favor of inefficiencies? OK.

      Japan does something better. "Wow, look how smart they are and how dumb short-sighted Americans are."
      We copy the idea (because it's a good idea) and you say ...

      "This is what happens when you manage your supply chain to maximize profit."

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Just in Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Critical systems should have redundancy built in.

      That isn't the same thing as inefficiency.

    3. Re:Just in Time by boskone · · Score: 1

      there are a lot of things where the supplier bears the cost of a fat supply chain, but society bears the cost of a too thin supply chain.

      For example, transformers. We should have TONS of spares in case of EMP, but who would pay for them. the answer is no one, so expect it to take YEARS to build enough new transformers

    4. Re: Just in Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the idiot. Japan optimized for utilization without shortages. They have no concept of profit

    5. Re:Just in Time by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      This would be something that people could join. Would you contribute 5 dollars for such a project? There are venues for such things.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  6. In which poor 3rd-world country did this happen? by ffkom · · Score: 1

    I'm sure US hospitals are hoarding these vials in preparation to ship them to some miserable 3rd-world country with an incredibly underdeveloped healthcare system, but the article misses to tell us which country that is... right?

  7. Crapification continues apace by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 0

    Tens of thousands of years from now, the young descendants of uplifted frogs will learn of the metaphor of the early 21st Century consumer.

    --
    Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
  8. Arm&Hammer and an AutoClave ? by kjhambrick · · Score: 1

    Hmmm ?

    1. Re:Arm&Hammer and an AutoClave ? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Arm & Hammer has chemicals in it that are fine when you eat it, and not fine when you inject it into the bloodstream.

      Basically, it's not "pure" enough, in that what impurities are present are toxic when not run through our digestive tract or similar absorption regulation system.

  9. Is Martin Shkreli exploring a new market? by laing · · Score: 2

    He has been known to do this.

  10. Soda ash Cartel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the major global producers of medical grade baking soda went bankrupt a few years ago, the Australian company Penrice. It wasn't able to compete against the US soda ash cartel, which dumped soda ash into the Australian market.

    Soda ash, or sodium carbonate, is mostly used to manufacture glass. The US has large naturally-occurring deposits of it, whereas other parts of the world produce it via the Solvay process, which involves heating limestone with salt.

    Penrice was spun out of ICI Australia, which has subsequently became known as Orica, Ixom and Dulux Group

    1. Re:Soda ash Cartel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it sounds like the United States has a competitive advantage in the production of soda ash. What makes you assume that the United States was "dumping" soda ash on Australia? Has the price of soda ash increased in Australia since Penrice went out of business. According to my googling, China is now the largest soda ash producing nation. It sure does not sound like US companies have a monopoly on soda ash.

      How about simply acknowledging that Australia's sole too small and too inefficient producer of soda ash was unable to compete and is now out of business. The capital and labor of Australian's can now be devoted to other enterprises where they enjoy a more favorable competitive advantage, and Australian consumers can enjoy the benefits of less expensive imported soda ash.

    2. Re:Soda ash Cartel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure but the side effect is that a large producer of medicial grade baking soda is no longer around. Which is more important and relevant to the story.

  11. Re:So why is it hard to make? by nevermindme · · Score: 1

    And the role of a pharmacists as a chemist is long gone.mixing and compounding substances to be used by humans topically and injected. Only a billion dollar company is willing to take the risk of marking up a common compound and selling at thousands of dollars per oz in the 1st world. Pharmasists are now the ones who are listed on the liability policy and monitor the pill dispensing machine.

  12. Re:So why is it hard to make? by guruevi · · Score: 2

    FDA approval and the guarantee that it is pure. Hospitals pay for that stuff even though there is no reason that an average lab couldn't produce similar qualities, the brand name of the product would probably have to go through FDA approval which can take years.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  13. Thanks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obamacare!

  14. Disputing the Free Market by tjstork · · Score: 2

    The whole problem that neither the free market or the socialized system completely solves is the basic reality is that people don't want to work and shucks, no one really wants to compete, either.

    Competition is a lot of work and the simplest way to make money is to try and be in a business that can avoid it. The easiest way to do that is to churn out intellectual property and rely on the regulated monopoly to attract investment in that property. In systems where there is no intellectual property, then, the next best way to avoid competition is through scale. In fact, big companies make use of both today - they invest capital enough to differentiate themselves, and then they sit on it as long as they can. If a company wins completely in the marketplace, the smartest move is to raise prices. If you have a nimbler competitor, he or she might just instead simply sell out, because, again, most people don't want to work.

    In socialized systems, there's never a part where you get to get rich and sell out, and then not work, so the easiest way to avoid work is to simply do as little as one can get away with. Since everyone is doing as little as one can get away with, smart people with no opportunity for advancement figure out exactly what is just enough to move them ahead commensurate to what the risk is, and social stagnation ensues. But pretty much, the end game of either a free market sector that is mature versus one that is run by the government, is a bunch of people sitting on top of a monopoly sufficient to last their lives, they hope, so they can get paid and not have to work all that much.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re: Disputing the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop projecting your sloth on others, you lazy shit. I enjoy my work and I would do it for free if I had a guaranteed income even without it. I'm lucky that I can choose where/for whom I work based on the terms I'm offered, picking from many above average options.

      Or did you mean to imply you were virtuous, but "others" are not? In which case I apologize for calling you a lazy shit, you sanctimonious ass.

    2. Re:Disputing the Free Market by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Scale is very important here. Pfizer has a big leg up because it has already purchased the necessary equipment to make acceptable drugs that pass inspections and testing, even in the case of something simple like sodium bicarbonate. If you want to compete with sodium bicarbonate here as a small provider then the cost outlay to even get started in the market is very high. The profit and margins for such a product is very low at the same time. You basically already have to be a large drug maker just to get started.

      The free market is why fewer and fewer phamaceuticals are making vaccines. Despite the large yearly demand for flu vaccines the profit is low and the companies don't want the hassle. For other vaccines that you use maybe only three times in a lifetime the the market is very tiny and the incentive to make vaccines is very small. Left solely to the free market it is likely to see some forms of vaccines dwindling (we already buy a lot from other countries). There are some vaccines with only a single maker. The free market means that companies are focusing on the most profitable drugs: profits from Lipitor exceed the worldwide profits for all vaccines combined in 2004.

  15. i was worried for a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use a ton of baking soda to adjust my swimming pool PH. Looks like I'm fine. Such a relief.

  16. Good thing the FDA is looking out for US by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See, without the great and wise FDA's policies of looking out for the people by allowing the concentration of critical supplies and medicines into the hands of 2 such wise and benevolent entities we'd not be in a position where decisions made entirely for profit could affect the lives of the general public. As much as I hate to see people suffer, I almost wish there would be deaths as a result of this and that forced some legal light onto the situation. Critical basics that are free from patent should required to be multiply sourced to ensure a steady interruption free supply chain, not concentrated into one or two 'most' profitable and controllable streams.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Good thing the FDA is looking out for US by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      As commerce and trade are not in the FDA's jurisdiction, it should be unsurprising that FDA is not taking any particular action to enforce commerce and trade laws.

    2. Re:Good thing the FDA is looking out for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a good thing the government is managing this instead of the free market. Look how well things turned out...

    3. Re:Good thing the FDA is looking out for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that our FDA should accept basic medications from other countries with proven quality production. There is no acceptable reason to have simple drugs monopolized by some pharma company that manufactures the drug in china instead of somewhere with better quality control.

    4. Re:Good thing the FDA is looking out for US by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I understand the purpose of the FDA and the FTC, and even the SEC. The area I was referring to would/should fall under the FDA's jurisdiction in the monitoring and certifying basic but critical medical and drug supplies and the working with the FTC and possibly the SEC to ensure that the entities involved weren't, say colluding or manipulating the market to ensure their continued monopoly and profiteering to the detriment of US citizens and our health care in general.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  17. How is Arm & Hammer not in on this game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is Arm & Hammer not in on this game?

    1. Re:How is Arm & Hammer not in on this game? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Exactly! How long could it take them to start producing pharma grade baking soda? Would it be a matter of weeks, months or years? It sounds like there's a big opportunity here, maybe they should be investing in competing with Pfizer instead of developing new condoms (they own Trojan).

      Unless of course they already are, and they're the undisclosed supplier having unspecified problems.

  18. Balance Risks Against Benefits by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    I think we can all agree that the pharmaceutical grade is what hospitals should use. However, if they cannot get it then the potential risks of using a non-pharmaceutical grade product should be compared against not having the treatment which uses it.

    For example, if it is used to treat poisoning and the patient will probably die without baking soda it might be worth the risk of commercial grade baking soda. Similarly, open heart surgery sounds pretty serious and might be something which is potentially very risky to delay so the risks of using a less-pure baking soda may be less than the risk of not doing the procedure which requires it.

    1. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Because:
      If you administer a non-clinically approved dose and the person dies then you are automatically at fault.
      This would result in both criminal and civil action.

      Put it this way. People win big in lotteries all the time. Would you risk your house and everything you own as well as your job and your family and spend the next 20 years or more in prison to maybe win the lottery ?

    2. Re: Balance Risks Against Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, and if the person being operated on died despite heroic efforts to save his life the patient's family would win the lottery suing the hospital. Their relative dying would be the best thing that ever happened to them.

      Best just to force the patient to die due to postponing surgery that could easily be done.

      Damn selfish family members and damn lawyers.

    3. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So why not give the poor bastard with poisoning a spoonful of Arm&Hammer and save the medially pure stamped and approved stuff for open heart surgery. For cases like this something like Arm&Hammer should be approved for oral ingestion and shouldn't carry any additional liability.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by piojo · · Score: 1

      Maybe Arm & Hammer is fine, and maybe it will kill 90% of patients when administered internally. The FDA approval process is what ensures either testing, or more likely, strict adherence to a procedure that produces a product in spec for internal use. Shouldn't we at least have a ballpark estimate of what the risk is before we start using unapproved drugs? (Emergencies may be different, but they may not. Are there any surgeries where baking soda is guaranteed to be the difference between life and death?)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    5. Re: Balance Risks Against Benefits by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Forget about the ambulance chasers you want to vilify.

      The local prosecutor will nail your ass to the wall for this kind of nonsense. Even without tort reform, serious medical malpractice can rise to the level of a crime even in the US.

      Forget Perry Mason. At this level you have to worry about Judge Dredd.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Arm&Hammer should be approved for oral ingestion and shouldn't carry any additional liability.

      Arm and Hammer is approved for oral ingestion. It's food grade. I agree that they should probably switch to store baking soda for oral application but I'm assuming that some of the shortage is for injection quality ingredients.

    7. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Because:
      If you administer a non-clinically approved dose and the person dies then you are automatically at fault.
      This would result in both criminal and civil action.

      But this is ridiculous. They should at least be able to give the patient the choice. Would you rather have the surgery/chemo and risk dying from impure drugs or would you like to go home and be guaranteed to die when the cancer kills you?

      Especially in the case of poison, store bought baking soda is already food grade and not taking it and you are going to die, then it makes perfect sense that administering an "unapproved" drug is the safer option than not administering it and any lawyer that says otherwise should be shot on the spot.

    8. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Maybe Arm & Hammer is fine, and maybe it will kill 90% of patients when administered internally.

      Go look at a few cake recipes. Does cake kill 90% of people who eat it? Cake contains baking soda and we aren't reading reports of cake related deaths, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and just guess the former is more likely than the latter.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      So why not give the poor bastard with poisoning a spoonful of Arm&Hammer

      That's assuming that the treatment for poisoning requires oral ingestion. I'm not a doctor and the article suggested that the typical uses required injection. It might be fine to eat commercial grade baking soda but if you are injecting it then I expect the risks are the same regardless of why you are injecting it.

    10. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Maybe Arm & Hammer is fine, and maybe it will kill 90% of patients when administered internally.

      90% seems a stretch given that people eat the stuff and if the alternative is a 100% chance of death then even 90% is better. Hence the argument to balance the risks.

    11. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Just look at cancer patients, the ones who think drinking water from a "magic" spring will cure them. Look at homeopathy , the anti-vax movement .

      People are stupid and at times of great stress they will grasp at anything they think will save them. People in that state are not "of sound mind".
      However the families of the deceased are also under stress (grief) and they too will try and find meaning/cause, and if that meaning is that a non-medical dose was used , which is against the law/ethics/etc then the doctor WILL be at fault.

      Already medical errors are the 3rd largest cause of death in the USA.

    12. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by piojo · · Score: 1

      But the alternative isn't a 100% chance of death. Waiting longer for an operation carries risk, but they're not making the emergency lifesaving operations wait.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    13. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by piojo · · Score: 1

      Try injecting that cake and see what happens. Really, I'll wait. Scared of needles? That's okay. Next time you get a very deep cut, just work the cake into the cut. Let me know how that works for you.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    14. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What you were replying to was "For cases like this something like Arm&Hammer should be approved for oral ingestion and shouldn't carry any additional liability." That was the context in which I was replying, as well. What the fuck does injecting shit have to do with oral ingestion? Nada.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    15. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by piojo · · Score: 1

      My apologies for my tone and for taking the conversation in the wrong direction. I missed the word "orally", and did not realize baking soda was used that way.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    16. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this has little to do with the actual problem from the original article the OP cites. In the article there is even a picture for you showing two boxes of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate injection, USP So, who cares what you were discussing? It's off topic.

    17. Re: Balance Risks Against Benefits by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      A reversal? On Slashdot? I thought I was the only one who did that! No worries, we all miss things from time to time, it's just refreshing to see someone own up to it instead of jumping ship.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re:Balance Risks Against Benefits by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Considering that I wasn't the one who brought the conversation to this topic, I was discussing what someone before me said; and now you're discussing what someone before you said. Pot, meet kettle.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  19. Call Arm & Hammer!!!! by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Why not? /s

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  20. Ridiculous by Mr.CRC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I once worked in the analytical laboratory at J.T. Baker as an analytical chemist. I personally tested NaHCO3 among many other chemicals to USP, FCC, and ACS standards. We had a warehouse with plenty of barrels of these kinds of commodities. Also, I seem to recall that the ordinary box of Arm&Hammer on the supermarket shelf is actually very high quality material, almost pure enough to use for creating primary standard grade sodium carbonate by baking out some water and CO2 at a specific temp.

    Note that the costs to certify to USP grade are little different than for the other grades. It is important to understand that many chemicals which come into a chemical plant never require any further purification. In such cases, a portion is split off to be packaged as ACS, another portion goes in the USP bottles, etc. The remainder can be sold off as "Technical" grade if there isn't enough room to store it. If there is room, it might be preferable to store the raw material that meets the higher specs. rather than sell it all off as tech. grade, because the next load that comes in might not meet the requirements for certs. and thus would need to go through a purification process.

    What's sad about this story is that because of the regulatory/liability state, it is impossible to engage in simple acts of innovation ("winging it") that could solve problems such as this "shortage." E.g.:

    Find a chemical company with some barrels of bicarb. that has been tested to one of the specs., or USP if possible. If they don't have the USP, then have them test the ACS or FCC to the USP std., which would probably pass if it already met one of the other stds.

    Then just procure the damn stuff!

    If additional sterilization is needed, have the truck routed to an accessible sterilization service. Ie., a facility with a gamma ray sterilization unit, where the material could simply be put on a belt and sent through the rays.

    Hospitals should have the capability to filter small lots of solution to further remove any particulates if necessary.

    But no, we'd rather incur large risks of an actual death to a patient to stave off some tiny risk.

    What a pathetic thing we have become.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      So I can follow along until you get to a sterilization procedure... then the FDA is going to want to see that that was validated, and that the testing is done by trained and/or accredited staff or facility. So that delays you until the other stuff will be ready anyhow. And it is hard to claim you could skip that part, because it'd be a pretty important safety component. You might be able to get away with sending those barrels to someone who already has a validated sterilization system for reagents with similar properties.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      "Just throw some gamma rays at it" is not a sterilization procedure.

      First, you have to ensure that you actually get every surface of the powder with sufficient gamma rays to kill everything. Because you can assume each granule is completely covered with bacteria, viruses and fungi.

      Second, you have to demonstrate you did not induce any chemical reactions by dumping a shitload of high-energy photons on it.

      Third, you're going to have to actually test that the product is sterile, because you can't actually trust that #1 happened. Maybe you got a clump.

      And now you're past the timeline when the "traditional" producers are back up and running again.

    3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing as a tiny risk in the US medical services. Every single thing can potentially become a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      So if you are laying on the floor dying of not enough carbonate in your blood stream, and there's a hypodermic syringe nearby, a gallon of distilled water, and a box of baking soda, are you saying you won't shoot it up?

      Also, I doubt that it is so complex to determine how to sterilize material with gamma rays. If you are an expert on this subject, please explain more and I'll be happy to listen and hopefully learn something. AFAIK if you want to kill some proportion, say 99.9% of pathogens, all you need to do is ensure that the material receives dose X, and you can base the dose determination on the most resistant known/common pathogens.

      It should not matter how the pathogens are distributed in the sample. The dose is uniformly distributed over each incremental unit of volume.

      If the staff microbiologists think that they have too many unanswered questions about the nearby gamma ray facility and it's applicability to their problem, fine they can simply boil a large pot of the solution. Or take a $30 CFL shortwave UV lamp and dip that into the solution and stir until its sterilized. These techniques are quite well characterized and extremely simple to perform.

      You are missing, however, my main point which is that having to get government approval for every possible step stifles any chance of being able to adapt to changing circumstances in a timely manner.

    5. Re:Ridiculous by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      So if you are laying on the floor dying of not enough carbonate in your blood stream, and there's a hypodermic syringe nearby, a gallon of distilled water, and a box of baking soda, are you saying you won't shoot it up?

      This isn't a single person in a ticking time bomb situation. It's large numbers of people, none of which are 100% guaranteed to die if they have to wait.

      If 10% die from waiting, and 30% die from infection/Mg toxicity/Na toxicity by using commercial-grade stuff, you don't use commercial grade stuff.

      Also, I doubt that it is so complex to determine how to sterilize material with gamma rays.

      You'd be extremely wrong. The photons have to actually hit the surface of the material you are sterilizing in order to kill what's on the surface. Make a clump, and the gamma rays will not hit the surface of the particles in the middle of the clump.

      And that's still ignoring the side effects of dumping high energy photons onto stuff. You are going to get chemical reactions in the material. Are the results toxic? Do the results mean you no longer have enough of the right chemical?

      It should not matter how the pathogens are distributed in the sample. The dose is uniformly distributed over each incremental unit of volume.

      /facepalm

      Baking soda is not clear.

      Photons that strike the surface do not pass through the surface. Meaning anything on the opposite side from your gamma ray source is going to be struck by zero gamma rays if the backing soda is piled up to any significant thickness.

      fine they can simply boil a large pot of the solution

      1) It's a solid.
      2) Boiling does not actually sterilize. Lots of bacteria and spores can survive boiling. That's why we have autoclaves.

      We boil drinking water because the bacteria that do survive tend to not cause diseases when you drink the water. But this is not a situation where the water is being drunk. It does not go through the filtration of our digestive tract. Instead, you're putting it right into the person's blood stream, unfiltered.

      You are missing, however, my main point which is that having to get government approval for every possible step stifles any chance of being able to adapt to changing circumstances in a timely manner.

      And you are missing, however, my main point, which is this is a lot more complex than you think and there's a lot more ways to screw it up than you think. Thus the government regulation to prevent your screw ups from killing lots of people.

  21. Seems like by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

    hospitals could allocate the pharmacy grade stuff for the open heart and use the industrial/food graded stuff for things like the bandage itching. Have the patient sign off on it. And as an incentive, charge the patient the buck it costs for the food grade product if they are willing to use it instead of the 100 they'd charge for the pharma grade.But oh, common sense, not in medicine. This is why an aspirin costs 10 bucks a pill at a hospital.

    1. Re:Seems like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anon because I modded.

      I work in the pharma industry. What you describe has some issues. First, a patient is not legally allowed to sign away risk like that. What you describe would fall under the protocols of clinical trials and those are thightly controlled and not performed in a 'let's use this stuff with possible unknown contaminants and see what happens' manner.

      Additionally, and especially in the US, this would end with million dollar lawsuits. You cannot sign away certain rights and protections. You cannot legally organize games of russian roulette and protect yourself by having the particiapants sign a waiver.

  22. there is still a world outside Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several non-Intel-based OSes which are Certified UNIX products with HW still in production https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm

  23. who is the mystery supplier to Pfizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unnamed in TFA, anyone know? Here is my guess: a supplier in China who also happens to be the supplier for Amphastar. Similar to the melamine dog food fiasco where we found almost every dog food brand sourced from the exact same factory.

    1. Re: who is the mystery supplier to Pfizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they weren't haggling over price, stuff is bought By the TON, sold by the gram http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&SearchText=Pharmaceutical+sodium+bicarbonate

  24. This is the one thing that scares me about Utopia by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Highly optimised systems get increasingly fragile. A highly optimised market for drugs will falter on the slightest off-the-regular imbalance. Same goes for IT services. Imagine everything running on and with Google in 3 decades. And Google then having some kind of hickup that puts the entire society of humanity to a grinding halt for a few days. Or weeks.

    A Utopia would have to be built taking this systemic problem into account. But then again, this might not be the best example. As we all know, the US medical system is about as far away from Utopia as it gets.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  25. Confidentially Agreements by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Informative
    "the issue was undisclosed due to confidentiality agreements"

    This is the smoking gun, people. The fact that the situation is constrained by secret agreements between players shows that no free market existed.

    The "free market" is a myth, and it has always been a myth. Without some independent mechanism to enforce honest behavior any market will become a criminal extortion enterprise. That is why there are laws against raising prices in emergencies. Otherwise bottled water and cans of food would go up by double digit amounts in case of a hurricane, tornado or earthquake, and people might even die as a result.

    Of course these days it doesn't take a catastrophe for greedy corporations to charge obscene prices. Epi-Pen, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Turing Pharmaceuticals have all engaged in extortion pricing after acquiring existing drugs. This is life threatening and gouges the taxpayer as well.

    The history of food and drug regulation in the US is the history of mass poisoning as a result of ignorance, greed and lack of regulation. All the comments about the "ebil gobment" blocking noble free enterprise are right wing masturbatory fantasies.

    The biggest issue we face is regulatory capture where special interests take over the government agencies that are supposed to keep them in check. Examples are the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry or the end of Net Neutrality at the hands of the telecommunication cartel.

    It's not about the government squashing the free market, it's about corrupt powerful monopolies using the government to enforce their dictatorial control over the economy.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Confidentially Agreements by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I don't see how an NDA with Pfizer's supplier means there isn't a free market. Secret agreements between ostensible competitors, collusion, would be one thing but this is one market player having a supply problem.

    2. Re:Confidentially Agreements by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      "Without some independent mechanism to enforce honest behavior any market will become a criminal extortion enterprise."

      Government is just a criminal extortion enterprise cloaked in a veil of legitimacy. Once you look past the bullshit, government operates on the basis of violence. All of their revenue is extorted based on the threat of violence and all their decrees are enforced at gunpoint. If you don't pay your taxes, government will steal your property and/or try to throw you in a cage. If you resist, they will resort to violence or even murder. The left wing fantasy is that big government would be good, if only the "right people" were in charge. A fantasy that is dispelled by all of the historical evidence. In the 20th century alone, governments have murdered tens of millions of people, typically their own citizens. That's not even considering war casualties.

      It's only logical that food, fuel & water prices should go up when there's scarcity. High prices create the incentive for eliminating the scarcity. People who live in hurricane and tornado zones & don't have 2 weeks worth of food, fuel, water & medicine are idiots.

      The ONLY reason pharmaceuticals in the USA are so ridiculously expensive is that your government makes it illegal to import or re-import any prescription drugs. Government agents guard the borders and make sure you don't come back from Europe or Canada with a suitcase full of cheap Epi-Pens. Get government out of the way and the free market will eliminate cross-border price discrepancies.

      If regulatory capture is such a huge problem, then it's just more evidence that government is a fundamentally flawed institution. Yes, monopolies and special interests clearly use government power to control the economy. Big pharma using government to prevent competition is a perfect example. If that power can be so flagrantly abused, why should government possess that power in the first place? Take away the power and you remove the potential for abuse.

    3. Re:Confidentially Agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how an NDA with Pfizer's supplier means there isn't a free market.

      I realize the term "free market" has been co-opted by anti-government folks, but if we go by the original definition, then information asymmetry is a sign that it isn't a free market.

    4. Re:Confidentially Agreements by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Here's the secret: nobody wants 'free markets.' They want 'open and fair markets.'

      In a 'free market,' guess what, individual actors are 'free' to enage in whatever sort of arrangements they'd like; collusion, price fixing, monopolies, etc etc.

      No, the trick is to not slide from 'regulated fairness' into, as you say, 'regulatory capture'.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:Confidentially Agreements by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      The problem is that things would be a lot worse without governments. Government is far from perfect, but it's an improvement over what we'd have without it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. It's all Trump's fault by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Is this how he wants to make America great again? Or is that the outcome of his health care legislation: we offer everything, but you won't get any of it.

  27. In Other News by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Doofensmirtz Evil Incorporated just announced a plan to use a giant baking soda volcano to take over the ENTIRE Tri-State area! Their stock is up 5 points after the announcement.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  28. But... But... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    But muh free markets!

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  29. The trouble is there's only two suppliers by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    for something this critical. That's the part that shouldn't be left to the free market. We do the same with our food supply through subsidies. When stuff matters we don't leave it to the free market. If we did we'd still have dust bowls and food shortages.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The trouble is there's only two suppliers by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Food is diverse, just like drugs. We do indeed have food shortages, but classes of foods are largely fungible - unlike drugs.

      In other words, if we lose half of the wheat crop, people can still eat corn. There are alternatives to bicarb, but they aren't pushed as fast - which can really matter in emergent situations. And emergencies are the only likely time you'd be using bicarb.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  30. Oh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's euthanize everybody. It's the humane thing to do.

  31. Re:This is the one thing that scares me about Utop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. chemotherapy treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for those who are in need of chemotherapy treatment to go to Mexico and get the easier treatment for cancer that was proven to work back in the 40s or 50s.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

    1. Re:chemotherapy treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes big pharma is hiding the cure for cancer. We'll just ignore the fact that big pharma has come up for a cure for Hepatitis C and didn't keep a lid on that(even if they decided to instead charge a metric fuckton, but I digress). Nope the pharmaceutical industry is out to POISON US ALL! We'll also ignore the fact people working in the pharmaceutical industry, in particular researchers, actually do WANT to find cures for various diseases. It's just not as easy as some of the slashtards around here seem to think it is.

      Go put your tinfoil hat back on, the mind control rays are seeping in.

  33. Food is diverse because gov't makes it so by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we subsidize the growing of unprofitable crops to ensure diversity. We subsidize specific behavior too (like crop rotation). Our food supply is heavily controlled by our government and largely for the better.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Food is diverse because gov't makes it so by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing that food supply is subsidized.

      Drugs are also very heavily controlled by government. We could even wax philosophical about whether or not a "private" corporation, which receives its charter from a government, is regulated by the government, and depends on government-granted monopolies, is actually an extension of government.

      But none of that matters because unlike food, drugs cannot be substituted. We can tolerate crop losses because they will be made up by other crops. This is not the case with all drugs. The model you are proposing as analogous is not really all that analogous at all.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.