SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (12958)1/7/2010 11:27:47 AM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) of 42652
 
In one sting in 2003, for example, FDA and Customs officials found that 88% of the imported drug packages they inspected did not meet FDA safety standards.

One sting? That would seem to be fairly meaningless because

1 - 100% could meet standards in every other sting, or in drugs that where not involved in stings. One sting, with no origin, not information about size etc. is pretty meaningless, esp. since the worst case would probably be provided to bolster the case against importation.

2 - The drugs in Canada (where I believe most of the re-importation comes from), are not known to be particularly dangerous, if they do really routinely fail to meet safety standards, it might be that they trivially fail standards that don't really matter in terms of safety.

Which doesn't mean I necessarily support the re-importation move. The ban is itself a restraint on trade by the government, which is reason to be against it. But the price controls and government monopsonies in other countries are themselves intervention in the free trade of drugs and their is reason to be concerned that the unrestricted import of drugs from such companies might effective "import price controls". I just think the safety issue claims are overblown.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext