3 ms·
Still ridiculously expensive. This sells for virtually nothing as a “research chemical.” Reminds me of the markups on AZT back in the day.
by wileydragonfly 10mo ago
Still ridiculously expensive. This sells for virtually nothing as a “research chemical.”
Reminds me of the markups on AZT back in the day.
- ramoz 10mo agoI'm assuming by “research chemical” you mean "counterfeit chemical" - Quite a signal for society, of individuals willing to inject themselves with these due to lack of funds or lack of effort.
- wmf 10mo agoNot everything is counterfeit.
- A_D_E_P_T 10mo agoThat analogy would hold if a counterfeit dollar were perfectly identical to a real dollar, totally indistinguishable, and nobody could possibly tell the difference. Most of the "research chemical" drugs out there are chemically identical to the marked-up pharmaceutical products. Not similar, identical.
- ramoz 10mo agoThey are literally synthesized drugs that are not from the manufacturer.
- A_D_E_P_T 10mo agoThey are synthesized drugs that are from a different manufacturer. (Usually synthesized the same way, via the same methods.)
- andsoitis 10mo ago> Not similar, identical. Without coming from the manufacturer or being validated by an independent, trusted third party, you do not know that the chemical composition is what is purported.
- coppsilgold 10mo agoWhen you are buying chemicals from unknown entities you are adopting the enormous risks that come with it. Drug synthesis can get very complicated. Purity of the drug is unknown. Which contaminants are present and what are their effects on your body? Unknown. What if any recourse do you have if they poison you? Minimal to none. Even if you have a trusted third party doing efficacious testing of the compounds, the consistency of manufacture will be unknown unless they also do inspections. While I have no doubt that you can have private entity do a far better job than the FDA if the incentives are right there will be no business there. Perhaps a charity could work? I have no idea how though.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- Marsymars 10mo agoIf it's not misleading to buyers, it's not a "counterfeit".
- ramoz 10mo agoI would say that it seems the vast majority of buyers on social media are convinced the drugs are coming from Eli Lilly & are being bought through "research" loopholes.
- zurfer 10mo agoIt's an interesting industry that needs billions to bring a new drug to market. At the same time it creates a lot of value to a patient. But the manufacturing of a single dose is usually tiny. Now how do you price that? The profits here will reward pharma investors and enable more investments in RnD of new medicines. I feel that's mostly fair.
- Scene_Cast2 10mo agoSome types of software aren't too far from that paradigm.
- kingstnap 10mo agoThe typical other solution for this is government grants for research. It could work but there are problems in (1) the amount of money required and (2) the funding research -> getting votes pipeline is borked (credit assignment in general is borked).
- AvocadoPanic 10mo agoThe 'risk' here is often carried by publicly funded research. ~6.2 billion for glp The private 'investment' comes in manufacturing, scale and marketing. Novo Nordisk has spent 41% more on shareholder enrichment (buybacks and dividends) than on R&D over the past five years.
- 15155 10mo ago> Novo Nordisk has spent 41% more on shareholder enrichment (buybacks and dividends) than on R&D over the past five years. So they are good stewards of their funds and know they can't deploy as much as they have? Berkshire Hathaway does the same thing.