| 1:18 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Out of vague curosity, I signed up with a company.
I got emailed a username / password, but didn't follow through as it looked very very fishy.
Anyone else have any experience with online drug ordering companies?
[edited by: eljefe3 at 1:05 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2004]
[edit reason] specifics edited out [/edit]
| 3:53 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Isn't that off-topic?
| 4:46 pm on Feb 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I got all excited about someone talking about online drug companies. Let me make it more topical: Anyone concerned about FDA and using online pharmacies?
[edited by: eljefe3 at 1:06 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2004]
| 5:33 am on Feb 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The FDA is not cracking down on it, but that doesnt say that other government agencies are not..
| 2:39 am on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Somebody needs to do something about all the DTC advertising in pharma. Half the [TV] ads make whatever they are selling sounds like candy - purple candy for middle aged people standing around in strange places.
Its just plain sick how much money is spent on DTC advertising.
Maby some high powered PI law firms could do something about it if people suffer damages and start claiming it was because the TV commercials mislead them into asking the doctor for meds that weren't created for whatever ailed them.
| 2:49 am on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To quote a Letterman punchline as retold to me: So let me get this straight, Cialis is the new Dodge truck?
Yes, I'd stay away from Rx-required pharm if the program is in any way skirting or rubber-stamping the Rx (so vitamins/herbals are open territory). I think the push to clean up whois may be part of an overall long-term strategy to put some teeth in the bite.
| 8:56 am on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The US President and Congress provide oversight and direction of all federal agencies. Members of Congress are divided into a number of committees and they have staff whose sole job is to monitor these agencies. If they don't like what one of them is doing they simply reprogram the agency's money into areas they want focused on and either underfund or don't fund the rest. Representative Waxman may be very upset but his fellow legislators on the committee which oversees the FDA know exactly what that agency has been doing or in this case not doing.
Nothing controversial ever gets done in presidential election years which 2004 is. It's either pushed into the previous year or more often into the next or subsequent years. The drug industry is a huge special interest group here. Neither party will want to piss them off because they want their financial backing and votes to get reelected. Don't expect anything until 2005 at the earliest.
| 9:46 pm on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I work with a company that sells scripts online. We have had to change the way we do business in order to comply with federal standards. We are not out of business and there is still money to made, but some of our top selling drugs are no longer shipping. The FDA got involved when one company was abusing the system and shut them down. This caused a ripple effect in the system as pharmacies and doctors became nervous about filling and prescribing drugs online. Things are starting to come back to normal and we have begun to actively recruit online marketers again. There is too much money to be made in this field for us to be shut down outright, but we are working hard to make this thing work.
| 12:12 am on Feb 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<The FDA got involved when one company was abusing the system and shut them down.>>
Don't you mean the DEA?
Anyway, Martini, the fda may be leaving aspects alone, but the dea is much more troubling to most.
| 12:29 am on Feb 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Those pill companies are booming....
google also made claims of kicking them all out, haven't seen it yet, and I doubt its coming anytime soon...
money over morals....