|
Home > Archive > Impotence Support > November 2004 > liquid tadalafil
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| anybody had experience with kitsnmore.com? (liquid tadalafil)
tom
| |
|
| Yes, a few months ago--did the job nicely and was delivered promptly.
"TomB" <tom@bellsouth.netnospam> wrote in message
news:h1efd.28052$qH3.2164@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> anybody had experience with kitsnmore.com? (liquid tadalafil)
>
>
> tom
>
>
| |
| Jerry Sturdivant 2004-10-26, 11:07 am |
|
"John" <Me@myhome.net> wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, a few months ago--did the job nicely
> and was delivered promptly.
It appears we have a new location for liquid Cialis. Should I add their name
to the list of our "Approved" places to purchase?
Jerry of ASI
| |
| avocet 2004-10-26, 7:11 pm |
| Yes. They are totally reliable. Or were last time I ordered months ago.
Jim
"TomB" <tom@bellsouth.netnospam> wrote in message
news:h1efd.28052$qH3.2164@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> anybody had experience with kitsnmore.com? (liquid tadalafil)
>
>
> tom
>
>
| |
|
| I received my order in 4 days..haven't been able to try it yet
thanks for the replies!
tom.
>
>
| |
|
| How is it packaged? I mean the container not the shipping package.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:13:52 -0500, "TomB" <tom@bellsouth.netnospam>
wrote:
>I received my order in 4 days..haven't been able to try it yet
>
>thanks for the replies!
>
>tom.
>
>
| |
| avocet 2004-10-26, 7:12 pm |
|
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vztfd.81129$kz3.35006@fed1read02...
> It appears we have a new location for liquid Cialis. Should I add their
name
> to the list of our "Approved" places to purchase?
>
> Jerry of ASI
_____
Good idea, Jerry.
But guys, do some thinking about this. Some of our best sources for these
generics have closed because they got too much attention from the drug
companies and/or from the Feds.
How about not passing this important information out to every web site and
Tom-Dick and Harry that you know?
I know. The Web is the Web. But we need this stuff. Reacreational users
do not.
Jim
| |
|
| "avocet" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Yes. They are totally reliable. Or were last time I ordered months ago.
OK, I just have to ask: What's the attraction of buying drugs in liquid form
when tablets are readily available?
There's no question that going outside the established distribution system is
more risky than going through a legit doctor/script/pharmacy.
At least with tablets, that risk is somewhat manageable if you stick with
branded tablets, in factory sealed packaging, from known pharmas. I'm thinking
Ranbaxy and Sildenafil Citrate here (and there are others), but the principle
still applies.
When you buy liquids in plain bottles, you have no idea what you are getting.
There's just no way to tell if it's water, diluted good drug, or cyanide. The
idea that someone before you thinks they got what they expected and that
provides any assurance that you will is crazy. Still, there are thousands of
people playing slot machines who think that because they lost the last 1000
pulls, the next one is going to hit.
I don't get it - what's the attraction? Some morbid attraction to playing
Russian roulette?
| |
| avocet 2004-10-26, 10:06 pm |
|
<your.name@here> wrote in message
news:a2otn0p33k9dnokr63lkg0d65mvmbpljdd@4ax.com...
> "avocet" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> OK, I just have to ask: What's the attraction of buying drugs in liquid
form
> when tablets are readily available?
> When you buy liquids in plain bottles, you have no idea what you are
getting.
> There's just no way to tell if it's water, diluted good drug, or cyanide.
The
> idea that someone before you thinks they got what they expected and that
> provides any assurance that you will is crazy. Still, there are thousands
of
> people playing slot machines who think that because they lost the last
1000
> pulls, the next one is going to hit.
>
> I don't get it - what's the attraction? Some morbid attraction to playing
> Russian roulette?
____________
I have bought generics in pill form also and wondered what was inside them.
Had no idea they would work until I tried them out.
For me it is a matter of economy. Lily's Cialis, which I use every second
or third day costs me US $ 8.48 for each pill (that's just one pill.). When
I order generics, I follow the lead of others here who have not been duped
by suppliers.
The liquid is the same stuff with a different "carrier." Do you know any
better what is in a pill (condensed powder) than in the fluid carrier?
Nothing morbid about it.
Jim
| |
|
| "avocet" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>The liquid is the same stuff with a different "carrier." Do you know any
>better what is in a pill (condensed powder) than in the fluid carrier?
But that's my point - I *do* know what is in certain tablets, or at least with a
level assurance that I am comfortable with.
I was comparing branded generic from a known producer of legit pharmaceuticals,
in sealed, manufacturer branded packaging. I understand the pricing issues with
the patented product, but that's not my question.
There's a world of difference (to me at least) between a branded generic and
some unidentified liquid in an unlabeled bottle.
Everyone should recognize the people distibuting this stuff are in it for one
thing only - the money. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't you
want as much protection as you could get?
So, what's to keep Joe Provider from deciding one day to cut in just a bit more
water? Or use an unsanitary mixing tank? Or worse? So it only affects 2 out of
100 customers. Joe's not exactly in a position to worry about getting sued. The
economics of cutting corners from his perspective look pretty good.
Some number of years back, people stoppped buying tap beer and insisted on a
bottle, with the brewery cap still on. Why? Because the bar owner wanted to make
a few more bucks per keg and was watering his beer.
Comparing apples to apples here: A generic tablet as I just described and and
unbranded liquid, what's the advantage of the liquid? Everything I've seen
suggests that there is no difference in pricing, so that can't be it.
| |
|
| Unless you buy the true Cialis from Lilly, you'll always be buying a
"generic" that's homemade and technically illegal due to patent law. Whether
pill or liquid, it's a back-room batch of chemicals... caveat emptor.
<your.name@here> wrote in message
news:a2otn0p33k9dnokr63lkg0d65mvmbpljdd@4ax.com...
> "avocet" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> OK, I just have to ask: What's the attraction of buying drugs in liquid
form
> when tablets are readily available?
>
> There's no question that going outside the established distribution system
is
> more risky than going through a legit doctor/script/pharmacy.
>
> At least with tablets, that risk is somewhat manageable if you stick with
> branded tablets, in factory sealed packaging, from known pharmas. I'm
thinking
> Ranbaxy and Sildenafil Citrate here (and there are others), but the
principle
> still applies.
>
> When you buy liquids in plain bottles, you have no idea what you are
getting.
> There's just no way to tell if it's water, diluted good drug, or cyanide.
The
> idea that someone before you thinks they got what they expected and that
> provides any assurance that you will is crazy. Still, there are thousands
of
> people playing slot machines who think that because they lost the last
1000
> pulls, the next one is going to hit.
>
> I don't get it - what's the attraction? Some morbid attraction to playing
> Russian roulette?
| |
|
| "John" <Me@myhome.net> wrote:
>Unless you buy the true Cialis from Lilly, you'll always be buying a
>"generic" that's homemade and technically illegal due to patent law. Whether
>pill or liquid, it's a back-room batch of chemicals...
Well, yes and no. There _are_ reputable pharmas, primarily in India, that are
FDA approved from a cleanliness and process standpoint. In fact, those same
pharmas frequently manufacture product for companies like Lilly and Pfizer. Not
homemade, by any means.
US patent law grants exclusive rights to drugs based on composition and process
used to manufacture the drug. While this changes next year, current Indian law
only protects process, not the actual drug itself. Hence, Indian pharmas can
legally manufacture patented drugs in India if they can figure out a different
process to get to the same end result.
The only illegality is the importation of the drug into the US.
Now, risk is a different story. Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. My
bent is more Libertarian, where I want the risk disclosed and I will make my own
informed decision.
On the scale of 1 to 10, buying something prescribed by a US MD, from a US
pharmacy, who acquired the drug from a recognized US distributor, who bought the
drug from a FDA regulated manufacturer (direct or under license), is probably a
1.
Skipping the doctor part probably bumps you up into the 2-3 territory, depending
on the drug and it's potential side effects and how much research you are
personally willing to do.
Buying US branded products outside the US distribution chain gets you into the
4-5 territory. Why? Potential for counterfeiting, storage at improper
temperatures, outdating, etc.
Buying a branded generic by a known reputable pharma outside the US distribution
chain gets you up into the 6-8 territory. Why? Would you know a counterfeit
Indian pharma package from a legit one? Do you know which Indian pharmas are FDA
approved? Do you keep an eye on when their FDA approvals are suspended for any
one of a 100 reasons?
Buying an unbraded generic tablet or liquid gets you into the 9-10, red lights
flashing, sirens screaming territory. In fact, I'll bet the casinos love you.
This is where I would agree that we're in the homemade, back room territory.
Composition of the product, how it was handled, quantity of the active
ingredient, etc. all come into play.
>caveat emptor.
Amen.
| |
|
| It's in a vial like injectable meds. You need to peel off an aluminum band
wrapper and pop the rubber cork.
"Tom" < PIZSDZLZDXWG@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:2fgtn09onb3e9omphlu1o9iba2o0rifout@4ax.com...
> How is it packaged? I mean the container not the shipping package.
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:13:52 -0500, "TomB" <tom@bellsouth.netnospam>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
| avocet 2004-10-29, 2:06 am |
|
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vztfd.81129$kz3.35006@fed1read02...
> It appears we have a new location for liquid Cialis. Should I add their
name
> to the list of our "Approved" places to purchase?
>
> Jerry of ASI
_____
Good idea, Jerry.
But guys, do some thinking about this. Some of our best sources for these
generics have closed because they got too much attention from the drug
companies and/or from the Feds.
How about not passing this important information out to every web site and
Tom-Dick and Harry that you know?
I know. The Web is the Web. But we need this stuff. Reacreational users
do not.
Jim
| |
|
| "In fact, I'll bet the casinos love you."
A casion has the odd already in their favor so it's not a gamble--you will
lose. Illegal drugs are risky but not a sure loss as many have found out--
to each his/her own. But then driving to work is also risky. We have the
free will to make the best, most informed choice we can-- if we want to.
<your.name@here> wrote in message
news:11v2o0lhvmnkeuf7rmfattg9lf6mcdj6df@4ax.com...
> "John" <Me@myhome.net> wrote:
>
Whether[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Well, yes and no. There _are_ reputable pharmas, primarily in India, that
are
> FDA approved from a cleanliness and process standpoint. In fact, those
same
> pharmas frequently manufacture product for companies like Lilly and
Pfizer. Not
> homemade, by any means.
>
> US patent law grants exclusive rights to drugs based on composition and
process
> used to manufacture the drug. While this changes next year, current Indian
law
> only protects process, not the actual drug itself. Hence, Indian pharmas
can
> legally manufacture patented drugs in India if they can figure out a
different
> process to get to the same end result.
>
> The only illegality is the importation of the drug into the US.
>
> Now, risk is a different story. Everyone has a different tolerance for
risk. My
> bent is more Libertarian, where I want the risk disclosed and I will make
my own
> informed decision.
>
> On the scale of 1 to 10, buying something prescribed by a US MD, from a US
> pharmacy, who acquired the drug from a recognized US distributor, who
bought the
> drug from a FDA regulated manufacturer (direct or under license), is
probably a
> 1.
>
> Skipping the doctor part probably bumps you up into the 2-3 territory,
depending
> on the drug and it's potential side effects and how much research you are
> personally willing to do.
>
> Buying US branded products outside the US distribution chain gets you into
the
> 4-5 territory. Why? Potential for counterfeiting, storage at improper
> temperatures, outdating, etc.
>
> Buying a branded generic by a known reputable pharma outside the US
distribution
> chain gets you up into the 6-8 territory. Why? Would you know a
counterfeit
> Indian pharma package from a legit one? Do you know which Indian pharmas
are FDA
> approved? Do you keep an eye on when their FDA approvals are suspended for
any
> one of a 100 reasons?
>
> Buying an unbraded generic tablet or liquid gets you into the 9-10, red
lights
> flashing, sirens screaming territory. In fact, I'll bet the casinos love
you.
> This is where I would agree that we're in the homemade, back room
territory.
> Composition of the product, how it was handled, quantity of the active
> ingredient, etc. all come into play.
>
>
> Amen.
| |
|
| "John" <Me@myhome.net> wrote:
>Unless you buy the true Cialis from Lilly, you'll always be buying a
>"generic" that's homemade and technically illegal due to patent law. Whether
>pill or liquid, it's a back-room batch of chemicals...
Well, yes and no. There _are_ reputable pharmas, primarily in India, that are
FDA approved from a cleanliness and process standpoint. In fact, those same
pharmas frequently manufacture product for companies like Lilly and Pfizer. Not
homemade, by any means.
US patent law grants exclusive rights to drugs based on composition and process
used to manufacture the drug. While this changes next year, current Indian law
only protects process, not the actual drug itself. Hence, Indian pharmas can
legally manufacture patented drugs in India if they can figure out a different
process to get to the same end result.
The only illegality is the importation of the drug into the US.
Now, risk is a different story. Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. My
bent is more Libertarian, where I want the risk disclosed and I will make my own
informed decision.
On the scale of 1 to 10, buying something prescribed by a US MD, from a US
pharmacy, who acquired the drug from a recognized US distributor, who bought the
drug from a FDA regulated manufacturer (direct or under license), is probably a
1.
Skipping the doctor part probably bumps you up into the 2-3 territory, depending
on the drug and it's potential side effects and how much research you are
personally willing to do.
Buying US branded products outside the US distribution chain gets you into the
4-5 territory. Why? Potential for counterfeiting, storage at improper
temperatures, outdating, etc.
Buying a branded generic by a known reputable pharma outside the US distribution
chain gets you up into the 6-8 territory. Why? Would you know a counterfeit
Indian pharma package from a legit one? Do you know which Indian pharmas are FDA
approved? Do you keep an eye on when their FDA approvals are suspended for any
one of a 100 reasons?
Buying an unbraded generic tablet or liquid gets you into the 9-10, red lights
flashing, sirens screaming territory. In fact, I'll bet the casinos love you.
This is where I would agree that we're in the homemade, back room territory.
Composition of the product, how it was handled, quantity of the active
ingredient, etc. all come into play.
>caveat emptor.
Amen.
| |
|
| It's in a vial like injectable meds. You need to peel off an aluminum band
wrapper and pop the rubber cork.
"Tom" < PIZSDZLZDXWG@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:2fgtn09onb3e9omphlu1o9iba2o0rifout@4ax.com...
> How is it packaged? I mean the container not the shipping package.
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:13:52 -0500, "TomB" <tom@bellsouth.netnospam>
> wrote:
>
>
|
| |
|
|