Androgel vs Compounded
- 08-25-2007, 05:13 PM
Androgel vs Compounded
It looks like without a prescription, the costs are:
Androgel 1% - 2 bottles (30 day supply) = $433
Compounded 5% (month) = $30
I believe this results in the same dosing.
I understand big business. But, wow - what a difference.
What is Solvay doing so differently than a compounder?
- 08-25-2007, 06:25 PM
Most drug companies are extremely greedy and rely on a very expensive sales force.
Ever wonder who pays for all that drug related odds and ends you see at your doctor's office? Who do you think pays for all those commercials? We all do.
I know a few drug company reps. You wouldn't believe the BS they tell doctors and the pressure to sell.
My guess is that Solvay has a patent on the packaging or something. Add in the fact that T is a controlled substance of sorts with a captive audience desperately in need of it and you see what we have here.
- 08-25-2007, 06:43 PM
I would think that the esters could have been patented because, as far as I know, they are not naturally-occuring. But most of them have been around for so long that the patents have probably expired.
Ancillary questions re: what works/doesn't work and why:
I note that 1% Androgel doesn't always work for many guys. They just don't get a high enough T level. It didn't do much for me last winter when I tried it before seeking help beyond the limited knowledge the urologist I was seeing possessed. Only went up maybe 100 points.
Here are my questions:
1) Why does this happen? Why do some guys not respond to it?
2) Since many compunded creams are 5%, not 1% like Androgel, could a better result be expected?
The reason I asked this - I seem to recall some posts where people did better on Androgel than compounded.
Also seeing alot of posts of people doing better injecting than gels - but I'm beginning to believe, that like me, those on gels tend not to inject hcg - if you are already injecting T, then it seems to reason that another injection is no big deal. I read alot from PlyCity indicating this is the case. (Just trying to improve my personal knowledge base)
Saving money (for everybody)
I'm all for saving money. I look forward to using compounders; but,to be fair the drug companies are not making enough profit. When it costs 800,000,000.00 dollars to get FDA approval of an average new drug, that can make quite a dent in profits. Even after release of the highly tested product, the system exposes drug companies to being sued for almost any reason. Would you want to start a drug company?Short answer "making alot more money"
Are you serious?
As for lawsuits--hardly. Don't believe the media. The reality is far different.
I would blame peoples gulligibility and lawyers exploiting it.
Get rid of lawyers.
You will be able to build
Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear waste storage facilities
Drill for oil
Get much less expensive medicines
few major others and lots of small ones
If more people really were able to start drug companies then profits couldn't be so high. Think about it!
Lawyers aren't the problem. Don't fall for the big companies' lies
Without lawyers you'd have corporations screwing us much, much more. You'd see even more deadly chemicals in the things we eat and drink. You'd see even more dangerous products, with "caveal emptor" becoming the rule and not the exception.
Remember the Pinto? Defective Firestone tires? How many of us would like to sue whoever made/makes Finistaride/Propecia for taking away our manhood?
Don't blame the lawyers and the media BS. Big companies would LOVE for you to blame them as such would allow them to continue to screw us with impunity. Lawyers give us, the regular guys, a fighting chance. Is the system perfect? Hardly. But, it beats having no recourse whatsoever and forever being at the mercy of the rich and powerful. We have places and Gov'ts without lawyers. They are called totalitarian states. They tell you what you want and how much you'll like it. I'll pass.
Don't get me going on lawyers........I just got thru with a prime example - just went after a guy who embezzeled a ton of money - well not a ton, but into the mid 6 figures - from an employee owned company. Yeah, we won - big deal - all the award, and then some went to pay legal fees.
....but we were rightous.
Don't even go defending the legal profession to me.......they know how to milk a case.
I did, however, get an education, and won't make the same mistakes again.
Sounds like more of a criminal case than a civil one (m)
Sounds like a criminal matter if it's truly embezzlement. Usually restitution is a part of any sentence or plea arrangement. It should be. Mid 6 figures is to me a "ton" of money! Well, it's at least quite a bit. 500K would make a difference in my life. In the criminal context the only lawyers you would deal with is the prosecutor's office.
The law is like any profession. There are good, bad and so-so practitioners. Look at us here. We wouldn't be on this board and ones like it if doctors, the drug companies and the medical profession in general was able and willing to help us and put our interests first.
We could have had all the power we want (almost free, no meters),
all the gasoline we want, SUV, Hummers
all the medicine we need
who said (except Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul) that you have to supply free medicine to all dieing all around the world.
but if you want to satisfy all last owl, can't do it.
I think I call this:
peoples gulligibility exploited by lawyers
profitiering on this and gumming up good system.
Think about is,
200 millions Americans (more than half of them not willing to work) can't solve problems of 6 billions and growing.
My wife's grandma had at habit (hobby, calling, pleasure) feeding priests and nuns in her house at Biskupia Krakow, way back in Poland.
Among them Cardinal Woytyla, latter Pope John Paul.
How many lawyers does it take to shingle a roof?
One!!! If you slice him thin enough.
Next thing you are going to tell me is to think twice when filling my boat with 350 gallons of gasoline going fishing.
Speaking of carbon foot print.
I don't want anyone being concerned with how much money I make, and I give the same consideration to everyone else, including corporations. I think we should all strive to be as successful/profitable as we can. To each his own. Don't cast aspersions on someone (person or company) because YOU think THEY are making too much money.
Success fosters innovation and desire to prosper. Highly profitable products and concepts will spawn competition, which ultimately makes a better, cheaper product.
BTW: here are some comparisons for the last fiscal year (profit margins):
Novartis AG 19.6%
Exxon Mobile 11%
Do not compare your self to the Johnses.
Do not envy others having more.
Make a (modest but comfortable) decission on your desired life style and spending goals.
Figure out you matching yearly spending income.
Work as a dog so you have 25x of your yearly income at hand ASAP.
Quit when you have reached this break thru point.
Enjoy the rest of your life, take 4% for your living expenses.
..might want to look at some companies that benefited from the conflict in Iraq.
But really - I don't take too much stock in those PM's listed. A smartly run company (and drug companies are run smart) will minimize that, because retained earnings are taxed heavily - why give it to Uncle Sam? There is a balance between keeping bottom line profits UP (so stock value goes up) and minimizing taxes.
A smart company knows how to manipulate profit to maximize benefit to the corporation.
Well, I got civilized and left the bus.
Hope I will be able to ride my SUV, motorhomes and a boat and public transportation is only a talk. (Yougo anyone?)
Ewa Sonnet is rather distracting, it is easy to loose sleep over her.
This days I hire Kaja for my dance practises.
I must say Kaja's boobs are no less distracting than Eva's
except that they are 6" away from my eyes.
exceedingly large natural breasts (36EE(F))
If your a business man then you know that competition is the main thing that holds down prices. If it were easier to start a drug company than profit margins would go down right? So what stops people from starting drug companies? Could it be too much regulation?
More likely it's the huge amount of capital necessary (the whole "takes money to make money" thing) I don't at all mean to say it's an easy industry to make a buck in, but if you have the money and a creative researcher then there are boatloads of money to be made. No doubt though that there is a huge amount of regulation on just the layout of a plant alone, not to mention actually trying to get a drug to market.
Similar Forum Threads
- By majinbijiita in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 12Last Post: 05-14-2009, 04:39 PM
- By Roms in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 14Last Post: 08-17-2008, 01:41 PM
- By wondering in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 3Last Post: 11-29-2007, 11:12 AM
- By yianni54 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 18Last Post: 04-08-2007, 09:22 PM
- By Jon DeVaul in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 2Last Post: 11-05-2006, 10:48 PM