Legalize Importation? Non! Your Poll Results
13 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // July 13th, 2007 // 9:10 am
Earlier this week, we wrote about Marcia Bergeron, who inadvertently became the poster child for the reimportation debate. The 58-year-old Vancouver resident died in December and last week the coroner made official what drugmakers and pharmacists have been saying for months - she was killed by fake meds ordered over the Internet.
Bergeron’s death is a poignant reminder that counterfeit meds do exist and can be harmful. But if the cost of some meds remains out of reach for enough people, counterfeiting will likely continue. And black markets can be difficult to eradicate. Which raises a question - is it time to discuss legalizing importation?
We asked you to vote, and the majority say importation should NOT be legalized. Granted, this isn’t a scientific poll; it’s more of a temperature reading. But it does provide some insight into current thinking. Here are the results…
No, don’t legalize importation - 26 votes, or 55 percent;
Yes, legalize importation - 21 votes, or 45 percent.
Peter Rost
Don’t think this is a temperature reading of the country. But it is a good indicator of your readership - a lot of good ol’ folks from the pharma industry. Which, perhaps isn’t surprising. Considering that this blog deals exclusively with - the pharma industry. In fact, with this in mind, your result may be close to revolutionary. Almost half the pharma folks want reimportation?
sid
Pete, come on my friend. This post has more antipharma people than pharma - take a look at the boards. One voice of reason per 100 posters. There were a total of 47 votes. I am not sure if you could put this up as revolutionary can you?
The desire to import meds died with Med part D. The elderly don’t care about costs if they aren’t paying. They just want as much free stuff as possible. Think Social Security needs overhauled, they don’t care, as long as they get what they think they need. I won’t see a dime of it, but they don’t care.
I think you forgot you were part of this. You may think you are doing so much good, but you are part of the reason that the industry has a tattered image. Feel good about yourself now, but you helped to cause this. You were one of the good ol’ folks for a lot of years weren’ you?
Peter Rost
“Sid,” no one who calls me “my friend” has ever turned out to be my friend . . .
Melody
Sid–
Your bias is showing. Non-pharma individuals are “complaining consumers” who are so intellectually challenged that we cannot read and understand scientific material? Only 1 out of 100 of the readers here express a voice of reason? The elderly “just want as much free stuff as possible.” And folks like Rost are responsible for the tattered image pharma now has?
Who expresses the voice of reason? Pharma reps? Pharma execs? Pharma PR?
sid
bloggers
John Mack
Sid may be one of those wankers over at Drug Wankers. This is probably what he means by “bloggers.”
Ed, you are being targeted by — what’s the word for it when anonymous posters like ’sid’ with a bias and hidden agenda claim they are just ordinary folk and they post comments day after day? It’s not wanker, it’s…? Sid, help me out here will ya?
sid
wankers? I am confused, but I try to stay away from that part of the internet.
Ed Silverman
Hi Folks,
The readership here is mixed, by which I mean people from pharma, people whose livelihood is somehow tied to pharma, and those who are consumers simply interested in pharma.
I don’t know, however, the mix of those who voted. But thought you’d find it interesting to know that there are readers with a wide variety of reasons and concerns for stopping here.
How do I know? Subscriber lists.
As to wankers, I’ll leave that to others.
ed
06203a3dd8354d64ecf33e30efb317e4
06203a3dd8354d64ecf33e30efb317e4…
06203a3dd8354d64ecf33e30efb317e4…
Antoine Clarke
Leave it to the communicator, Peter Mack, to resort to name calling… I guess he can’t find his todger, poor thing, so he accuses others of masturbating.
Medicare Part D has been accompanied by a 50% drop in imports from Canada [see this link: http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2007/5/25/Sales-of-Canadian-Rx-Drugs-to-US-Residents-Tumble.aspx, which seems to back up Sid’s point, despite frenetic efforts by Democrats to talk down the scheme (which is a huge bloated entitlement program that will IMHO help bankrupt the US welfare system in the long run). The Dems latest scam is to “reduce the confusion” for seniors by limiting the number of insurers that can offer their products, which will of course lead to less competition, higher premiums and justify MORE regulations and lawsuits and subsidies.
Obviously, the poll is not scientific or representative of all US citizens, but the close result fits with the two concerns: rising health care bills and worries about safety.
To me, the solution would be to abolish the FDA altogether, allow Internet buying, and have people like consumer reports invest in labs to do spot checks. I trust a private organization with a reputation to preserve more than a bunch of bureaucrats trying to second guess the best career moves if Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani or Edwards gets to pick the next boss at the FDA and CDC.
I also think the biggest threat is the false sense of security from thinkng that if the FDA hasn’t issued a recall, it must be safe. There is no absolute safety, only variations of risk.
Think of the 39,000 cats and dogs that have been poisoned with fake wheat gluten, apparently from China. They trusted their owners blindly. Should we trust ours?
sid
John, I guess I am bad at vague sexual comments, I really didn’t understand your post.
Parker
Good information. I think you should Try for more?
Felipe Tamez
Felipe Tamez…
thanks thats a great post maybe a little confused but i think it´s ok to start with it…