Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 142 posts

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#21

Post by coreyoconnor »

Good to know that the US health care system will impose these individuals with the cost. Shame on them for not properly researching the product. They should have considered their consumer choices against the possibility of cancer years later. No doubt the medical bankruptcy some will have is deserved.

Obviously sarcasm. This is, however, how the current US medical system behaves. It's impossible that these patients would have the capacity to evaluate medication sources like they would any other product. Many likely had no opportunity or choice. Yet the US supports a system that punishes an individual for aspects well beyond the individual.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#22

Post by mikeyouse »

MegaButts wrote: post #18
gwbas1c wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is. It's primarily based around different characteristics of how the medication dissolves in the patient's stomach, or the differences between fillers and binders.

Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?

The active ingredient is the same - the binders and fillers and capsule materials are mostly inert. This isn't true for all drugs - for the blood thinner Coumadin, you're meant to stick to generic or brand name and not switch between the two since there are known differences in efficacy.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#23

Post by thereisnospork »

MegaButts wrote: post #18
gwbas1c wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is. It's primarily based around different characteristics of how the medication dissolves in the patient's stomach, or the differences between fillers and binders.

Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?

Chemically equivalent but formulated differently. Think hot dog vs. corn dog: the meat is the same but the packaging is slightly different.

The packaging can have a surprisingly large effect on drug absorption, and therefore efficacy. Notably with difficult to dissolve drugs a lot of work typically goes into formulating them to be more efficiently processed by the intestinal tract.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#24

Post by dahfizz »

lostmsu wrote: post #19
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #2

> By 2014, the FDA had closed its offices in Shanghai and Guangzhou, leaving only the Beijing office with inspectors who could visit Chinese factories on short notice. > The FDA checks less than 1% of drugs for impurities or potency before letting them into the country. For a regulator body who's job it is to make sure medical products are safe and available. These comments, if true, lend credability that the FDA is…

>> The FDA checks less than 1% of drugs for impurities or potency before letting them into the country. > For a regulator body who's job it is to make sure medical products are safe and available. These comments, if true, lend credability that the FDA is more regulatory capture than actual useful regulation. I wonder though if this statement misrepresents the facts. If they check only 1% of the entire import volume a…

I agree, I think the statement is ambiguous.

1% of all products (e.g. one pill from every bottle of 100 pills) being tested seems like plenty.

1% of shipments (1 out of 100 shipments is sampled) seems insufficient.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#25

Post by MegaButts »

mikeyouse wrote: post #22
MegaButts wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?

The active ingredient is the same - the binders and fillers and capsule materials are mostly inert. This isn't true for all drugs - for the blood thinner Coumadin, you're meant to stick to generic or brand name and not switch between the two since there are known differences in efficacy.

I understand that. OP said:

> There is no sensible reason to pay a premium for brand name if the generic is chemically equivalent.

If they're not chemically equivalent and have different medicinal effects as a result, then it's much easier to justify a price difference. I understand chemistry is more than just a list of ingredients. It's how those ingredients are combined that gives them their unique interactions.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#26

Post by copperx »

wtvanhest wrote: post #16

Quick question. Title says "generic", but obviously there is a massive economic interest in switching people from generics to non-generics. Is this contamination also possible in non-generics???

Sure, it is possible, but because the brand name passed the carcinogenicity tests in animals, and if the manufacturer kept their same suppliers and formulation, the risk should be much lower.

Whether that's true or not in practice is a different matter. But yes, I would have more confidence in a brand name after this report, which makes me cynical about the intentions of the reporting in the first place.

Maybe I'm totally being manipulated by big pharma, but I'll switch my medication to brand name as soon as possible, and that's just because my insurance is good. Very few people have that option.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#27

Post by refurb »

thereisnospork wrote: post #23
MegaButts wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?

Chemically equivalent but formulated differently. Think hot dog vs. corn dog: the meat is the same but the packaging is slightly different. The packaging can have a surprisingly large effect on drug absorption, and therefore efficacy. Notably with difficult to dissolve drugs a lot of work typically goes into formulating them to be more efficiently processed by the intestinal tract.

The FDA approves generics based on bioequivalence, not just chemical composition. In order to be an "AB" rated generic (and used as a substitute for the branded product), the generic has to fall between 80-125% bioequivalence of the brand, which measure dissolution and absorption.

The fillers in the generic don't have to be the same as the branded product, but the drug does have to behave the same as the branded product.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#28

Post by sjg007 »

coreyoconnor wrote: post #21

Good to know that the US health care system will impose these individuals with the cost. Shame on them for not properly researching the product. They should have considered their consumer choices against the possibility of cancer years later. No doubt the medical bankruptcy some will have is deserved. Obviously sarcasm. This is, however, how the current US medical system behaves. It's impossible that these patients w…

You should able to sue the pharmacy and your insurer for sourcing and requiring tainted products that are not quality controlled. I would expect some class action lawsuits to appear shortly.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#29

Post by refurb »

aresant wrote: post #14

I would pay good money for a supply chain based “consumer reports” so I actually know what’s in my products eg - medicines! - supplements - food - clothing Clearly in the USA their is gigantic demand for organic / harmful chemical free products.

The article talks about a pharmacy that does just that - tests all the products before dispensing them and rejecting those that don't pass.

Re: Carcinogens Have Infiltrated the Generic Drug Supply in the U.S.

#30

Post by cliff »

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend the book 'Bottle of Lies' which was released a few months ago. It details systemic corruption in a number of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.

It also details how the FDA is struggling with monitoring overseas manufacturing.

Post reply on HN