Comment by Someone1234

Comment by Someone1234 2 months ago

5 replies

I think you've lost sight of what the discussion was about.

The person above was claiming they were using substandard versions of their medication in non-US markets where the retail cost is lower. I was pointing out that the manufacturing cost is so low, that doesn't make sense.

Your point now has nothing to do with the discussion being had.

s1artibartfast 2 months ago

I made a sibling comment agreeing with that point and expanding on why.

However, bad data is bad data. If I said the moon creates waves because it is made of cheese, I think it is completely legitimate to point out out that it is in fact not made of cheese.

MichaelZuo 2 months ago

Linking a paper with bizarre assumptions, regardless of what the title or abstract claims, simply can’t be productive or helpful.

It can only lower your credibility and the credibility of the associated arguments…

  • s1artibartfast 2 months ago

    It is important to distinguish concepts here.

    One concept is a single firm selling a branded product in multiple markets. Novo Nordisk sells at different prices in different markets, but the product is all of equal quality, and usually comes off of the same manufacturing line globally, or one of a few.

    The other is usually generics made by entirely different companies. These can vary greatly in quality, from identical to deadly. It is a bit of a stereotype, but you usually see higher quality control and less fraud in US and western European manufacturing than say India, China, or SEA.

    Having worked for US drug manufacturers, they deeply desire to move manufacturing to Asia where they can, but dont because of frequent quality issues when they do.

  • Someone1234 2 months ago

    You were claiming non-US markets were:

    > less pure ingredients, less stringent QC

    Why don't you link to a paper or source showing that to be true? If you want to discuss credibility.

    • MichaelZuo 2 months ago

      I didn’t claim that…?

      You selectively quoted a chunk leaving out “could be reflecting”, implying a probability above 0.

      So at most it can be said to imply there will always be a true probability greater than 0.

      e.g. Someone could perish from a meteorite hitting them tomorrow. There will always be some non zero probability of that.