Tuesday, July 29, 2003
The following EMAIL exchange is an interesting lesson for a lot of people. Don't just take the "current liberal wisdom" at it's face. Investigate and see for yourself what the issues are about. Otherwise, like Ed, you'll get caught in your own logic trap. References to yesterday's post as well:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed (again, I'm a nice guy and removing his email address)
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:04 PM
To: Alan, Greg
Subject: RE: Perscription Drugs
Well, at least your babbling is grammatically correct.. You get a "A" for that.. Now, if you understanding can be improved. You forgot to look at the Protection Act itself, that's the real substance and info, not the spelling. Here again, you sidetrack the issue with minor things.
Ed
My response:
I did read it...hope you will too:
(From Public Citizen.org - Ralph Nader organization)
The Prescription Drug Marketing Act(2) (PDMA) of 1987. This law contains provisions intended to prevent the wholesale distribution and sale of subpotent, adulterated, counterfeit, or misbranded prescription drugs and bulk drug substances to the American public by requiring certain wholesalers, deemed "unauthorized distributors"(3) as opposed to "authorized distributors"(4), to produce a paper trail or "pedigree" documenting all prior sale, purchase, or trade of a drug, starting with the manufacturer....
In drafting PDMA in 1987, Congress found, in part, that:
American consumers cannot purchase prescription drugs with the certainty that the products are safe and effective.
The integrity of the distribution system for prescription drugs is insufficient to prevent the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit drugs.
The existence and operation of a wholesale submarket, commonly known as the "diversion market", prevents effective control over or even routine knowledge of the true sources of prescription drugs in a significant number of cases.
Large amounts of drugs are being reimported to the United States as American goods returned.
The bulk resale of below wholesale priced prescription drugs by health care entities, for ultimate sale at retail, helps fuel the diversion market and is an unfair form of competition to wholesalers and retailers that must pay otherwise prevailing market prices.(5)
Congress was provoked and acted responsibly, except for the authorized distributer omission mentioned above, in drafting and passing PDMA after several cases of drug counterfeiting were uncovered in the mid-1980s. One of these cases involved the importation and distribution of sixteen lots, comprising over one million tablets, of counterfeit Ovulen-21, an oral contraceptive in 1984. The counterfeit pills were found to be subpotent and two pregnancies were known to have occurred in women who used these pills.(6)...
We fully support the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) interpretation of PDMA that a person importing a prescription bulk drug substance into the United States intended for pharmacy compounding is engaged in wholesale distribution and must provide a pedigree showing all prior sales and purchases of the prescription drug substance...
Undoubtedly, there will be increased costs and logistical problems for distributors in meeting PDMA's pedigree requirements. In the long term, increased costs are always paid by consumers. Logistical problems in tracking the pedigree of drugs is not a legitimate reason for not requiring all distributors to maintain a pedigree...
Greg comments --- hmmm...interesting that Ralph Nader didn't seem too concerned about the "increased costs" passed on to consumers after the passage of the law. I'm sure that Ralph doesn't consider himself and his organization to be supportive of what you describe as, "raping" US citizens....
Criticism dismissed. Thanks again for a stimulating conversation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed (again, I'm a nice guy and removing his email address)
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:04 PM
To: Alan, Greg
Subject: RE: Perscription Drugs
Well, at least your babbling is grammatically correct.. You get a "A" for that.. Now, if you understanding can be improved. You forgot to look at the Protection Act itself, that's the real substance and info, not the spelling. Here again, you sidetrack the issue with minor things.
Ed
My response:
I did read it...hope you will too:
(From Public Citizen.org - Ralph Nader organization)
The Prescription Drug Marketing Act(2) (PDMA) of 1987. This law contains provisions intended to prevent the wholesale distribution and sale of subpotent, adulterated, counterfeit, or misbranded prescription drugs and bulk drug substances to the American public by requiring certain wholesalers, deemed "unauthorized distributors"(3) as opposed to "authorized distributors"(4), to produce a paper trail or "pedigree" documenting all prior sale, purchase, or trade of a drug, starting with the manufacturer....
In drafting PDMA in 1987, Congress found, in part, that:
American consumers cannot purchase prescription drugs with the certainty that the products are safe and effective.
The integrity of the distribution system for prescription drugs is insufficient to prevent the introduction and eventual retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or even counterfeit drugs.
The existence and operation of a wholesale submarket, commonly known as the "diversion market", prevents effective control over or even routine knowledge of the true sources of prescription drugs in a significant number of cases.
Large amounts of drugs are being reimported to the United States as American goods returned.
The bulk resale of below wholesale priced prescription drugs by health care entities, for ultimate sale at retail, helps fuel the diversion market and is an unfair form of competition to wholesalers and retailers that must pay otherwise prevailing market prices.(5)
Congress was provoked and acted responsibly, except for the authorized distributer omission mentioned above, in drafting and passing PDMA after several cases of drug counterfeiting were uncovered in the mid-1980s. One of these cases involved the importation and distribution of sixteen lots, comprising over one million tablets, of counterfeit Ovulen-21, an oral contraceptive in 1984. The counterfeit pills were found to be subpotent and two pregnancies were known to have occurred in women who used these pills.(6)...
We fully support the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) interpretation of PDMA that a person importing a prescription bulk drug substance into the United States intended for pharmacy compounding is engaged in wholesale distribution and must provide a pedigree showing all prior sales and purchases of the prescription drug substance...
Undoubtedly, there will be increased costs and logistical problems for distributors in meeting PDMA's pedigree requirements. In the long term, increased costs are always paid by consumers. Logistical problems in tracking the pedigree of drugs is not a legitimate reason for not requiring all distributors to maintain a pedigree...
Greg comments --- hmmm...interesting that Ralph Nader didn't seem too concerned about the "increased costs" passed on to consumers after the passage of the law. I'm sure that Ralph doesn't consider himself and his organization to be supportive of what you describe as, "raping" US citizens....
Criticism dismissed. Thanks again for a stimulating conversation.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
