 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / May 2004Canadian pharmacy
Hi, I'm sure you've discussed this topic before, but I hope that you can answer my questions anyway. My mom, who is 82, asked me to look into getting her prescriptions from a Canadian pharmacy. I called , and the person quoted the prices which were significantly less than she was used to paying. She is on Diovan, Inderal, and Viox. She is also on Ambien, which I was told they cannot fill. My questions are these. Is there any disadvantage to getting her prescriptions this way? Is it legal? Are the qualities of drugs the same as here? (US) Would you do it for a member of your family, and if not, why not? The pharmacy I looked into is Redwood. Thanks so much for your time. Chris I can speak for The Canadian Drugstore www.tcds.com The quality of the Celexa I receive is superior to that of the USA brand. Also the medication is in a sealed box, each tablet is bubble sealed so I know its lot number and its expiration date. Also being sealed, that it has not been on the floor or tampered with from the factory. However I have to pay the shipping and wait for the mail. That is the disadvantage of getting the medication by mail. I understand it is legal to import small quantities of medication as long as it is for your personal use and not for resell. I am eating some crackers imported from Canada tonight. They are tasty and I am not worried about them poisoning me. You can't import stuff like narcotics, sleeping pills, or Havana cigars legally from Canada. > Hi, > I'm sure you've discussed this topic before, but I hope that you can answer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks so much for your time. > Chris > I can speak for The Canadian Drugstore www.tcds.com > > The quality of the Celexa I receive is superior to that of the USA brand. How is it superior? According to the RPh. professor from Toronto, Lundbeck is the original company that makes Celexa. This is what comes from Canada. The American version is by Forrest Laboratories, therefore, a licensed copy of the original. Since it is cheaper than the American version, I consider the original to be a better choice. The person I order it for says it works better than what she received from the local drug store. Since she thinks it works better, it does work better for her even if it is a placebo effect. > > I can speak for The Canadian Drugstore www.tcds.com > > > > The quality of the Celexa I receive is superior to that of the USA brand. > > How is it superior? > According to the RPh. professor from Toronto, Lundbeck is the original > company that makes Celexa. This is what comes from Canada. The American > version is by Forrest Laboratories, therefore, a licensed copy of the > original. Since it is cheaper than the American version, I consider the > original to be a better choice. If they're bioequivalent and the one is cheaper, then sure. > The person I order it for says it works better than what she received from > the local drug store. Since she thinks it works better, it does work better > for her even if it is a placebo effect. Not very convincing, but who knows... maybe it is higher quality. I doubt it. > > > I can speak for The Canadian Drugstore www.tcds.com > > > > > > The quality of the Celexa I receive is superior to that of the USA > brand. > > > > How is it superior? I personally like it as it is in strip packaging and it is very neat. I like things neat yet I live with two people that just drop things everywhere including medication. I have had some luck with getting them to keep their medication in one place so they don't have a panic every night trying to find it. Also great when its misplaced as there is no doubt to the ID of the product. > Not very convincing, but who knows... maybe it is higher quality. I doubt it. > Lundbeck is the original > company that makes Celexa. This is what comes from Canada. The American > version is by Forrest Laboratories, therefore, a licensed copy of the > original. Since it is cheaper than the American version, I consider the > original to be a better choice. In Canada, Celexa is marketed by Lunbeck's subsidiary in Canada. It is quite common that in different countries independent entities acquire the marketing rights from the manufacturer, as is apparently the case with Celexa in the US. It's still the same formulation -- if it weren't, it would have to receive regulatory approval from the FDA or Health Canada as the case may be, which the manufacturer obviously tries to avoid. There are many other examples of brand-name drugs that are marketed by companies that aren't the original manufacturer. Two that come to mind are Lanoxin (digoxin) which Glaxo in Canada sold the marketing rights to a company called Virco. Another is Lipitor which Pfizer makes but co-markets with Pharmacia. > The person I order it for says it works better than what she received from > the local drug store. Since she thinks it works better, it does work better [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > How is it superior? The brand name drugs that we get in Canada come from exactly the same sources as in the States. Whether the stuff is in a vial or in blister is simply a matter of which format the manufacturer offers or the pharmacy orders and has nothing to do with the "quality" of the product. Just keep in mind that Inderal will probably be substituted with generic propranolol when you get it in Canada, where it is interchangeable. There are no generics for Diovan or Vioxx in Canada (yet). > Hi, > I'm sure you've discussed this topic before, but I hope that you can answer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks so much for your time. > Chris Thanks, your input is invaluable to me. > The brand name drugs that we get in Canada come from exactly the same > sources as in the States. Whether the stuff is in a vial or in blister is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Thanks so much for your time. > > Chris "Whether the stuff is in a vial or in blister is simply a matter of which format the manufacturer offers or the pharmacy orders and has nothing to do with the "quality" of the product" It results because the drug manufacturer is saving money by not providing state of the art packaging. Does McDonalds have bulk bottles of catsup, salt, and pepper on the countertops of their restaurants? No, they know better. A sealed package is a safety control measure. Do you remember the poisoned Tylenol incident that occurred in the USA? That led to a drastic change in the packaging standards for OTC drugs. I will not purchase a jar of grape jelly from a supermarket that has its seal broken or the top popped. I don't have to buy products that may have been tampered with. The FDA is in error allowing open packages of medication to be sold to retail consumers from bulk packaging. In the case of expensive drugs that may sell for up to ten dollars a unit it is an open invitation to counterfeiting medication or selling out of date pharmaceuticals. Yes, counterfeit medication has been found and reported in the United States. I am a pharmacist and I do not think most pharmacists would do this. However there are nut cases and criminals among even pharmacists. Do you remember the pharmacist (not too long ago) that was diluting expensive IV cancer medication so that he could make extra money from it? You are safer buying medication that you take on a regular basis in bottles of 30's or 100's that have been unopened since they left the factory. You may have to ask for it but you don't have to buy from Canada to receive it. > It results because the drug manufacturer is saving money by not providing > state of the art packaging. Does McDonalds have bulk bottles of catsup, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of grape jelly from a supermarket that has its seal broken or the top > popped. I don't have to buy products that may have been tampered with. Yes, but medications aren't grape jelly and pharmacists aren't supermarket clerks. People (or the government or insurance as the case may be) pay dispensing fees to pharmacists in part because pharmacists are supposed to be responsible for the informed and responsible keeping of stock medications whichever their form. The cost to the manufacturer to package the medicine in a blister or in a stock bottle is inconsequential compared to the margin they're charging on the product itself. Thus for example a box of Altace 30's in blister is exactly 30/500 of the price of a bottle of 500's of the same strength. This is even the case for many generic drugs (e.g., ranitidine, pravastatin). It is really bad misinformation if people think that pharmacists somehow make $ out the "spread" by giving you meds in vials and charging for blisters. The manufacturers really don't care about this packaging cost and their prime concern is to get people to buy the meds, and if the smaller packages sell better, there you go. What a pharmacy offers, as I've pointed out times before, is whichever suits its inventory and convenience.  SignatureGregory M. K. Poon, Ph.D., R.Ph., B.Sc.Phm. Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering University of Toronto > "Whether the stuff is in a vial or in blister is simply a matter of which > format the manufacturer offers or the pharmacy orders and has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 100's that have been unopened since they left the factory. You may have to > ask for it but you don't have to buy from Canada to receive it. >.Ph., B.Sc.Phm. >Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >Yeah and your Leaf's lost to the Flyers again. LOL > >Yeah and your Leaf's lost to the Flyers again. > LOL Yeah and your Red Wings have lost to the Flames. Because the Wings didn't have their Canadian captain (Steve Yzerman). LOL SignatureGregory M. K. Poon, Ph.D., R.Ph., B.Sc.Phm. Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering University of Toronto > >.Ph., B.Sc.Phm. > >Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> > >Yeah and your Leaf's lost to the Flyers again. nospam (Pumbaa @megagate.com>) wrote in message >...I am a pharmacist... That's funny. You don't talk like one. Thank you! nospam (Pumbaa @megagate.com>) wrote in message >...I am a pharmacist... That's funny. You don't talk like one. > nospam (Pumbaa @megagate.com>) wrote in message > > >...I am a pharmacist... > > That's funny. You don't talk like one. He isn't listed at U of T either. Sadly, the University of Toronto does not yet list post-doctoral fellows. Equally sadly, I think you were referring to somebody else. SignatureGregory M. K. Poon, Ph.D., R.Ph., B.Sc.Phm. Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering University of Toronto > > nospam (Pumbaa @megagate.com>) wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He isn't listed at U of T either. > Sadly, the University of Toronto does not yet list post-doctoral fellows. > > Equally sadly, I think you were referring to somebody else. You are correct - my apologies. js > > Petepenguin@webtv.net (P T) wrote in message > news:<14089-4099CF1E-40@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net>... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > He isn't listed at U of T either. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.