Comment by MichaelZuo 15 hours 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…
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.
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.
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.