Impotence Support

Author

Cialis

mush97

2005-05-05, 5:49 pm

Are there different manufacturers of Cialis, with different efficiency.

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov

2005-05-05, 10:49 pm

"mush97" <mush97@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Are there different manufacturers of Cialis, with different efficiency.

No. Cialis (TM) is made by Eli Lilly (google is your friend). Only
Lilly makes Cialis. Within some minor and unnoticeable tolerances
every Cialis mg is identical.

Pharmaceuticals marketed as "generic Cialis" and similar are pirated
knock-offs of the Lilly product. They might be the same, contain more
or less of the active ingredient, or be simply a sugar pill. Without
detailed and very expensive testing you have no way of knowing. OTOH
most people on this NG find that most of the pirate pills perform
identically to the Lilly original. YMMV.

Anoni Moose

2005-05-06, 10:47 pm

M...@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
> "mush97" <mush97@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
efficiency.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No. Cialis (TM) is made by Eli Lilly (google is your friend). Only
> Lilly makes Cialis. Within some minor and unnoticeable tolerances
> every Cialis mg is identical.
>
> Pharmaceuticals marketed as "generic Cialis" and similar are pirated
> knock-offs of the Lilly product. They might be the same, contain more
> or less of the active ingredient, or be simply a sugar pill. Without
> detailed and very expensive testing you have no way of knowing. OTOH
> most people on this NG find that most of the pirate pills perform
> identically to the Lilly original. YMMV.

Although some generic Cialis from India *could* be pure sugar, those
Indian made brands containing tadalafil aren't "pirated" (although Lily
may think it is). Until recently, patents for drugs worked differently
there -- where if the process to make the drug was different, the
manufacture
of the drug was legit. A company could only patent the process to make
a
drug, not the drug itself. Their laws were changed recently,
I don't know if it affects pre-existing drugs or only the patenting of
new ones from that time out.

Mike

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov

2005-05-07, 8:49 am

"Anoni Moose" <gewgle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>M...@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>efficiency.

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Although some generic Cialis from India *could* be pure sugar, those
>Indian made brands containing tadalafil aren't "pirated" (although Lily
>may think it is). Until recently, patents for drugs worked differently
>there -- where if the process to make the drug was different, the
>manufacture
>of the drug was legit. A company could only patent the process to make
>a
>drug, not the drug itself. Their laws were changed recently,
>I don't know if it affects pre-existing drugs or only the patenting of
>new ones from that time out.

To US patent law any tadalafil other than that made by Lilly or under
license from them is, in common parlance, pirated. It's really
immaterial anyway. The Indian products are NOT Cialis which was the
derivative question of the OP.

quizzical_look

2005-05-08, 8:49 am

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:

> To US patent law any tadalafil other than that made by Lilly or under
> license from them is, in common parlance, pirated. It's really
> immaterial anyway. The Indian products are NOT Cialis which was the
> derivative question of the OP.
>

Luckily for millions of HIV sufferers US patent laws have not applied to
the rest of the world in the past - although the US Govt are doing their
level best to make this happen using ..ahh.. whatever means are at their
disposal ;)

I hate to be pedantic, but the word 'pirate' refers to those who rape
and murder on the 'High Seas'. It has more recently been appropriated by
global/national corporate cartels (eg the RIAA) to refer to those
individuals allegedly guilty of copyright and/or patent infringements.

Cialis is a tradename for a particular chemical substance. As the
previous poster opined, this substance has been legally produced in
India under their own (not US) law, and in most cases as far as I can
see was chemically identical (the only kind that matters from a
therapeutic perspective) to Cialis.

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov

2005-05-10, 12:04 pm

quizzical_look <x@hotmail.duh> wrote:

>Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Luckily for millions of HIV sufferers US patent laws have not applied to
>the rest of the world in the past - although the US Govt are doing their
>level best to make this happen using ..ahh.. whatever means are at their
>disposal ;)

>I hate to be pedantic, but the word 'pirate' refers to those who rape
>and murder on the 'High Seas'. It has more recently been appropriated by
>global/national corporate cartels (eg the RIAA) to refer to those
>individuals allegedly guilty of copyright and/or patent infringements.

So don't be! You did see the "in common parlance" in my statement
didn't you? [Now I'm being pedantic.]

>Cialis is a tradename for a particular chemical substance. As the
>previous poster opined, this substance has been legally produced in
>India under their own (not US) law, and in most cases as far as I can
>see was chemically identical (the only kind that matters from a
>therapeutic perspective) to Cialis.

You DON'T know that the Indian products allegedly containing tadalafil
and illegally imported into the US do in fact contain the chemical in
the appropriate concentration. Over the last year or so there have
even been reports of personal experience of non-working Indian
tadalafil on this NG.

Recall the original post:

"Are there different manufacturers of Cialis, with different
efficiency."

No there are not different manufacturers of Cialis any more than there
are different mfgrs of Kleenex other than Kimberly Clarke. There is
one, Eli Lilly. Even the Indian mfgrs of tadalafil don't claim it to
be Cialis. Even you point out, "Cialis is a trade name". If the OP had
asked "Are there different manufacturers of tadalafil, with different
efficiency," the reply would be as you describe (subject to the QC
question).

I'm now off to ingest 20mg of some dubious substance produced
somewhere in the PRC and sold by my friendly internet drug dealer,
Josh. I think it might be therapeutically equivalent to the Eli Lilly
product, Cialis, but I'm by no means certain. As you can see it hasn't
yet killed me.

quizzical_look

2005-05-10, 12:04 pm

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:

> So don't be! You did see the "in common parlance" in my statement
> didn't you? [Now I'm being pedantic.]

The irony has escaped you: 'Cialis' is nothing more than 'common
parlance' for 'Tadalafil' - and no matter what Eli Lilly say, it will
continue to be, just like 'piracy' will continue to be used, however
misleading it is. Thus 'Cialis', despite the best efforts of
intellectual property zealots, will surely be used as a descriptor of
generic Tadalafil until, in common parlance, the cows come home.

> Over the last year or so there have
> even been reports of personal experience of non-working Indian
> tadalafil on this NG.

You seem to be saying (questions of legality in particular jurisdictions
aside) that there may be a risk of quality control problems with
imported Indian medications. I completely agree. Of course, this risk is
offset for some by the difference in price - Capitalism at its best.

> "Are there different manufacturers of Cialis, with different
> efficiency."
>
> No there are not different manufacturers of Cialis any more than there
> are different mfgrs of Kleenex other than Kimberly Clarke.

You and I are arguing two different things. I argue that the substance
matters. You argue that the name 'Cialis' matters. I suspect that the
original poster may have been concerned with the function rather than
the name. I would be

> I think it might be therapeutically equivalent to the Eli Lilly
> product, Cialis, but I'm by no means certain. As you can see it hasn't
> yet killed me.

There is no guarantee that US manufacturers have perfect quality
control. Of course, if history is our guide, the chance of some as yet
undetected deleterious side effect arising from the use of Cialis in the
future is far greater than the chance of a dodgy batch, even from India,
causing illness.

Jerry Sturdivant

2005-05-10, 12:04 pm

If I may add:

There are few things you can intentionally put in a pill that will make you
sick. I've used Cialis, Taladefil in liquid form, pills from India and still
working on a batch of pills from the China Connection. They all work the
same. I believe that if there were some other, dangerous, ingredient in the
pills, it would have to intentional added.

I consider it more dangerous eating in restaurants (what goes on in the
back?) as I do purchasing pills from china.

But that's just me.

Jerry of ASI

CARL CASON

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

Cialis does nothing for me. But neither does either of the other two
"enhancers"

Patrick

"quizzical_look" <x@hotmail.duh> wrote in message
news:4280883f$0$4654$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
>
>
> The irony has escaped you: 'Cialis' is nothing more than 'common parlance'
> for 'Tadalafil' - and no matter what Eli Lilly say, it will continue to
> be, just like 'piracy' will continue to be used, however misleading it is.
> Thus 'Cialis', despite the best efforts of intellectual property zealots,
> will surely be used as a descriptor of generic Tadalafil until, in common
> parlance, the cows come home.

>
>
> You seem to be saying (questions of legality in particular jurisdictions
> aside) that there may be a risk of quality control problems with imported
> Indian medications. I completely agree. Of course, this risk is offset for
> some by the difference in price - Capitalism at its best.
>
>
> You and I are arguing two different things. I argue that the substance
> matters. You argue that the name 'Cialis' matters. I suspect that the
> original poster may have been concerned with the function rather than the
> name. I would be

>
>
>
> There is no guarantee that US manufacturers have perfect quality control.
> Of course, if history is our guide, the chance of some as yet undetected
> deleterious side effect arising from the use of Cialis in the future is
> far greater than the chance of a dodgy batch, even from India, causing
> illness.
>
>

q
>
>

Anoni Moose

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

quizzical_look wrote:
> Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
there[vbcol=seagreen]

Actually there may be a lot of mfgrs of Kleenix, but they
would all be doing so under contractual authorization of
Kimberly Clarke. Particularly, but no exclusively, for international
sales where they want to sell somewhere but
don't want to set up manufacturing there (or transport goods
there). Just have a mfgr make it under your name. Happens
all the time (although admittedly, I suspect not with drugs
so much).

And then there's companies w/o any manufacturing at all
that have others do ALL of their manufacturing. That DOES
happen with drugs (the company that makes Testim doesn't
actually make it themselves, they have a mfgr'ing company
do it for them).

However, in this case we were talking about 'facial tissues',
not 'Kleenex'.

Mike

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

quizzical_look <x@hotmail.duh> wrote:

>Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>The irony has escaped you: 'Cialis' is nothing more than 'common
>parlance' for 'Tadalafil' - and no matter what Eli Lilly say, it will
>continue to be, just like 'piracy' will continue to be used, however
>misleading it is. Thus 'Cialis', despite the best efforts of
>intellectual property zealots, will surely be used as a descriptor of
>generic Tadalafil until, in common parlance, the cows come home.

Probably but it's annoying because it's not factual.

The word piracy is used because the English language lacks a
sufficiently emotive word for "patent infringement" and/or "trade mark
infringement". You're right that it's not really "piracy" but using
the correct terms doesn't convey the sense of indignation and
objection to anti-social behavior that "might" dissuade some from the
activity.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>You seem to be saying (questions of legality in particular jurisdictions
>aside) that there may be a risk of quality control problems with
>imported Indian medications. I completely agree. Of course, this risk is
>offset for some by the difference in price - Capitalism at its best.

I don't think so. Unless you're willing to posit that in a capitalist
society the inventor/innovator of some new product is not to be
protected from copying. The only capitalist part is the cost of
production and distribution and I'd bet that as far as that goes, even
without government-mandated and enforced QC, Lilly could stomp on the
Indians price-wise at least in this country.

As a practical matter every time a rich world person bypasses the
geographic controls and buys copyright-infringing <g> tadalafil he
actually raises the cost of the legitimate drug for those who don't
have the ability to bypass them. Those R&D costs have to be recovered
somehow.

The pharmaceutical industry is everyone's favorite whipping boy and
indeed they have much to answer for including rapacious profits,
overpaid executives, over-expensive sales practices, palatial offices,
enormous and unnecessary overheads, and (probably) ineffective and
poorly-directed research. However until we're willing to socialize the
cost of research and give the results to the world for free (and I
don't think any of the drugs we use here would be good candidates for
government-funded research) and let Lilly and the others just handle
the production and marketing we don't have a better method of funding
than patent and trademarks.

quizzical_look

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

Jerry Sturdivant

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

<Mungy@HorribleISP.gov> wrote

> The pharmaceutical industry is everyone's favorite whipping
> boy and indeed they have much to answer for including rapacious
> profits, overpaid executives, over-expensive sales practices,
> palatial offices, enormous and unnecessary overheads, and
> (probably) ineffective and poorly-directed research.

Aww, you left out my favorite: Government protection for selected or favored
corporations. If these very same U.S. companies can save costs by purchasing
labor and materials from abroad, why not me? If corporations can import
products to compete with locals, why can't I purchase from abroad? Although
we're off into Free Trade discussions, I'm rankled that seniors can't drive
across the border to purchase less expensive drugs without their bus being
stopped upon return. But then, I'm a Libertarian.

Jerry of ASI

Anoni Moose

2005-05-12, 12:15 pm

Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:

> As a practical matter every time a rich world person bypasses the
> geographic controls and buys copyright-infringing <g> tadalafil he

I doubt anyone does. I don't think 'tadalafil' is a Lily
copyright where 'Cialis' would be. I don't think ANY of
the clone-makers use the word "Cialis" which would be
required for copyright infringement. One could argue about
"sound-alikes", but that's splitting hairs.

I suspect you meant patent-infringing.

> actually raises the cost of the legitimate drug for those who don't
> have the ability to bypass them. Those R&D costs have to be recovered
> somehow.

True, but I doubt it affects price. Price is set by the
market. Cost is set by what what it costs to make including
amortized capital costs of development. The difference is
profit. Profit would go down (and the source of capital for
the "next" successful product) due to lowered volume. The
only thing that would reduce prices charged by the mfgr
would be competition or laws that require price reduction.

Lily isn't at some point going to say "gee, we've now paid
off the development costs, we should lower the price!".

There is competition going on between Cialis, Viagra, and the
other one. May result in price dropping some day.

Mike

CARL CASON

2005-05-14, 9:01 am

q
>
>

Anoni Moose

2005-05-14, 9:01 am