4 ms·

> If you send your compounds off for proper testing it shouldn't be that dangerous, but that will increase the cost a few 100% most likely > Testing usually do

> If you send your compounds off for proper testing it shouldn't be that dangerous, but that will increase the cost a few 100% most likely > Testing usually doesn't come cheap, but you also might be able to drop by a well equipped Chem department at a university for testing as well I don't think it's that easy. Even if you successfully synthesize the right chemical, you also have to get dosage and delivery right (consistently!). From the OP: > In response, Four Thieves published the instructions for a DIY epipen online that can be made for $30 in off-the-shelf parts and reloaded for $3. If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it (e.g. mechanism fails, storage stability issues, dosage issues, etc.). Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem. > Shkreli drove the price of the lifesaving HIV medicine Daraprim sells up to $750 per pill. So Four Thieves developed an open source portable chemistry lab that allows anyone to manufacture their own Daraprim for just 25 cents apiece. The article calls Daraprim and "HIV medicine" throughout, but isn't that misleading? I thought it was an anti-parasitic (that may be used by HIV patients to treat secondary infections).

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it. Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem. DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!)
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!) Yeah, the answer is $600 is far too expensive. IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation (e.g. limiting the profit margin on generics or even drugs more generally), or some kind of boutique government-owned generic maker tasked with being a manufacturer of last resort and selling generics at its cost (which should be higher than a non-price-gouging private company, so it works to put a price-ceiling on those companies and also acts as insurance against unavailability).
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    > IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      The computer market is not particularly regulated, yet we still have international big tech monopolies stifling competition. I think the US simultaneously needs: • less regulation, to reduce barriers-to-entry • more regulation, to allow competition Normally, I'd be concerned about reduced regulations having safety implications, but the existing situation is already unsafe.
      - waterhouse 5y ago
        Patents are a big part of how the stifling is done. Getting rid of them, or at least cutting their term by a factor of 3-4, would help a great deal.
        kragen 5y ago
        While I agree that patents are net harmful, especially in software, if you cut their term by a factor of 4 to 5 years, many of them would expire before being granted, which would be a hard policy to defend.
        waterhouse 5y ago
        Heh, interesting. Perhaps that problem would self-correct after a while; if the payoff for a patent was lower, fewer would apply and there would be less of a backlog... Hmm, looking into it, https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html measures a bunch of different things, but it seems "traditional total pendency" is the main metric, and it seems to be about 2 years on that at the moment. Of course, if there's high variance, then that could mean that a bunch do take 5 years. That said, if a patent is pending and no one knows when it'll be granted, is that not enough? Would competitors really introduce their own patent-violating version, knowing they may have to suddenly cut production if the patent goes through? Do they do that today? At any rate, those delays seem absurd; presumably they're due to having a backlog, due to the USPTO not employing enough people, due presumably to them not having enough of a budget. Not that I'm in favor of giving money to patent-granters, though. I wonder if a fee paid by the patent-holders—say, a small percentage of the revenue from selling patented products—would be a reasonable way to fund it.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> If I had to depend on an epipen to save my life, I don't think I'd want a DIY version that may not work when I need it. Sure I guess it's better than nothing, but it's also proof this clearly isn't the solution to the $600 epipen problem. DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!)

tablespoon 5y ago
> DIY versions are normally more expensive than mass-produced equivalents. So either this DIY version has atrocious quality, or $600 is far too expensive. (Judging by the prices in normal countries, $600 is far too expensive!) Yeah, the answer is $600 is far too expensive. IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation (e.g. limiting the profit margin on generics or even drugs more generally), or some kind of boutique government-owned generic maker tasked with being a manufacturer of last resort and selling generics at its cost (which should be higher than a non-price-gouging private company, so it works to put a price-ceiling on those companies and also acts as insurance against unavailability).
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > IMHO the answer is some kind of regulation IMHO, the solution is actually less regulation. If any company could enter that market with being sued into the ground, you'd get top notch a quality product for a fraction of the price before you could finish spelling epinephrine.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    The computer market is not particularly regulated, yet we still have international big tech monopolies stifling competition. I think the US simultaneously needs: • less regulation, to reduce barriers-to-entry • more regulation, to allow competition Normally, I'd be concerned about reduced regulations having safety implications, but the existing situation is already unsafe.
    - waterhouse 5y ago
      Patents are a big part of how the stifling is done. Getting rid of them, or at least cutting their term by a factor of 3-4, would help a great deal.
      - kragen 5y ago
        While I agree that patents are net harmful, especially in software, if you cut their term by a factor of 4 to 5 years, many of them would expire before being granted, which would be a hard policy to defend.
        waterhouse 5y ago
        Heh, interesting. Perhaps that problem would self-correct after a while; if the payoff for a patent was lower, fewer would apply and there would be less of a backlog... Hmm, looking into it, https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/pendency.html measures a bunch of different things, but it seems "traditional total pendency" is the main metric, and it seems to be about 2 years on that at the moment. Of course, if there's high variance, then that could mean that a bunch do take 5 years. That said, if a patent is pending and no one knows when it'll be granted, is that not enough? Would competitors really introduce their own patent-violating version, knowing they may have to suddenly cut production if the patent goes through? Do they do that today? At any rate, those delays seem absurd; presumably they're due to having a backlog, due to the USPTO not employing enough people, due presumably to them not having enough of a budget. Not that I'm in favor of giving money to patent-granters, though. I wonder if a fee paid by the patent-holders—say, a small percentage of the revenue from selling patented products—would be a reasonable way to fund it.