• alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s weird that they call them knock-offs, they’re the same drug, just made by a different company with a different name.

    This is bad because it will increase prices for these drugs.

    • mySFWaccount@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        59
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        They are absolutely 100% imitations copied from an original. Just because the imitation is good or even perfect, doesn’t make it any less an imitation or knockoff.

        Edit2:
        There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
        But disregarding how close it comes, even if it’s identical it’s still a knockoff, and it will always be considered “cheap” because it’s not an original product.

        I find it strange that the perception is that these medicine copies are not knockoffs because they are well made??? Because in medicine that’s very common, is widely sold as cheaper alternatives, and generally has the exact same effect as the original. And it’s perfectly legitimate once the patents expire.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          47
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It is chemically indistinguishable. This is usually not the case for imitations or knockoffs in other market sectors. So it should be highlighted to prevent a misleading narrative.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            32
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            This is usually not the case for imitations

            So what? That doesn’t make them not imitations or copies, and it’s called an exact copy and is not unusual, and it’s still a copy. No matter how accurate good and efficient, doesn’t change that it’s a copy of an original heavily researched product.
            These new weight loss medicines are Nobel Price material, no doubt it’s not the knock offs that will get the Nobel Price for copying what someone else did.

            • Otter@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              ·
              1 month ago

              The original comment you replied to said

              Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.

              They used quotes to point out that those words usually imply an inferior quality, something which doesn’t do what it says that it does, something that is produced without permission, etc.

              While the drugs may still be copies, word choice can affect how people perceive the quality / efficacy of them.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                A knock off is a copy, a cheap knock off is a cheap copy.
                There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
                In medicine it’s quite common that cheaper copies or knockoffs are identical to the original product, and those are very common to become available when patents have expired.

                • Otter@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.

                  While I can find definitions that call it “an inferior copy” (link), that’s not the point. Common usage has made it so that people will assume things about the quality or efficacy of the medication when certain words are used. Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.

                  Often when patents expire and other options emerge, they are called “generics” or “store brand” versions. Those terms don’t carry the negative associations.

          • roofuskit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Hey, this isn’t real water! This asshole just combined one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms!

            • P1nkman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Did you know there’s an abundance of H²O in the world, and that it kills people every year? It can literally kill you, so we need to ban it!

        • vithigar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 month ago

          “Imitation” very strongly implies that it is not in actuality the thing being imitated. Imitation butter is not butter. Imitation crab is not crab.

          These medicines are the same chemical, therefore the same product.

          I will however grant that while calling store brand painkillers “imitation ibuprofen” is nonsense, calling them “imitation advil” is okay because advil is a brand. Though in my opinion it should be avoided because it carries an implication of inferiority that is simply not the case.

        • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          Just like going to buy corn in the grocery store is ripping off the Incan farmer who domesticated them 10000 years ago

    • disgrunty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Does the US not have generic unbranded drugs?

      Generics are literally a fact of life over here (UK) and the fact that Americans are going insane over them is wild to me. The NHS will prescribe generics as standard because they’re cheaper to supply and they’re literally the same drug.

      My mother has a whole goody-bag of medication and there’s not a single brand name to be seen. They’ve kept her going for >10 years.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oh we have generics all over the place.

        The problem is that large drug companies abuse our patent systems to keep their drugs exclusive for longer than should be allowed.

        Look at EPI pens. The drug is just Adrenaline, you can get a vial of that anywhere as long as you have a prescription. But the EPI pen mechanism itself is patented. So no other manufacturer can sell an easy to use, pre measured dose of Adrenaline without violating the patent. That’s why EPI pens cost hundreds of dollars instead of the 20 bucks they probably actually cost to produce. And you need that mechanism, because no one with a throat that’s closing is going to be able to calmly pull out and ampule or vial, measure the right dose into a syringe, and get it into their system before they pass out from anaphylaxis.

        • disgrunty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          Wow, damn I had no idea. It’s criminal that they’re allowed to price gouge people like that!

          I’d understand if it was some frivolous cosmetic thing made from anglerfish caviar or something equally absurd, but this is lifesaving medicine. I wish terrible things on the people who set those prices, that’s pure evil.

      • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        New drugs get a period of time where the company that developed it has exclusive manufacturing rights. The idea is that if anyone can start making the drug immediately, there’s not a good reason for companies to spend money to develop new drugs. However if demand for a drug is greater than the ability of the creating company to produce the drug, other companies are allowed to temporarily step in and make up the difference.

        • disgrunty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think there’s something similar in terms of initial patent rights, but it’s awful that people who need these meds are footing the bill. I realise now that I have been spoiled by the NHS. The idea of charging people for medical care that they need is unthinkable to me. It’s heartbreaking.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      they’re the same drug,

      Of course they are, that’s what it means, it’s copied from the original.

      There are also fakes that do not contain real medicine, those are not knockoffs, because they do NOT copy the medicine, only the packaging. The knockoffs are not decidedly fake because they actually work.

  • Otter@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Some more discussion on this article over on !medicine@mander.xyz

    See here: https://lemmy.ca/post/30650429

    A few points brought up in the comments

    • The shortage isn’t necessarily over, and an obvious downside is drug prices / abuse from the manufacturer
    • This mostly affects larger pharmacies that can do compounding (ex. CVS, Walmart) since smaller independent pharmacies usually don’t have the means to do it. However, the specifics will vary depending on where you are.
    • A more reasonable concern is that the compounded drugs don’t go through the same quality control. So while they should act the same and be safe, it’s possible that some pharmacy company (see above) is cutting corners for profit.

    My thoughts:

    • the US has a drug price problem
    • it’s possible to get safe and quality controlled pharmaceuticals without restricting it to one company, especially if that company can’t handle the demand

    community promo

    If you’re a medical professional on the Fediverse, some communities you might be interested in:

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    This cost compounding pharmacies about one batch of drugs. Anyone with any sophistication just added some B6 into the next batch and went back to business as usual.