They are absolutely 100% imitations copied from an original. Just because the imitation is good or even perfect, doesn’t make it any less an imitation or knockoff.
Edit2:
There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, even if it’s identical it’s still a knockoff, and it will always be considered “cheap” because it’s not an original product.
I find it strange that the perception is that these medicine copies are not knockoffs because they are well made??? Because in medicine that’s very common, is widely sold as cheaper alternatives, and generally has the exact same effect as the original. And it’s perfectly legitimate once the patents expire.
It is chemically indistinguishable. This is usually not the case for imitations or knockoffs in other market sectors. So it should be highlighted to prevent a misleading narrative.
So what? That doesn’t make them not imitations or copies, and it’s called an exact copy and is not unusual, and it’s still a copy. No matter how accurate good and efficient, doesn’t change that it’s a copy of an original heavily researched product.
These new weight loss medicines are Nobel Price material, no doubt it’s not the knock offs that will get the Nobel Price for copying what someone else did.
Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.
They used quotes to point out that those words usually imply an inferior quality, something which doesn’t do what it says that it does, something that is produced without permission, etc.
While the drugs may still be copies, word choice can affect how people perceive the quality / efficacy of them.
A knock off is a copy, a cheap knock off is a cheap copy.
There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
In medicine it’s quite common that cheaper copies or knockoffs are identical to the original product, and those are very common to become available when patents have expired.
There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
While I can find definitions that call it “an inferior copy” (link), that’s not the point. Common usage has made it so that people will assume things about the quality or efficacy of the medication when certain words are used. Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.
Often when patents expire and other options emerge, they are called “generics” or “store brand” versions. Those terms don’t carry the negative associations.
Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.
I agree, I just find it strange that that is the perception of medicine that is a knockoff of an original, because that’s very common, is widely sold, and generally has the exact same effect as the original.
A knockoff is also used for a cheaper copy of an original. Cheaper as in price, not necessarily quality, although that is often the case, it doesn’t have to be. As is usually NOT the case when it regards medicine. The cheaper copy (knockoff) can usually be used interchangeably.
There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, it will always be considered cheap because it’s a knockoff and not an original product.
“Imitation” very strongly implies that it is not in actuality the thing being imitated. Imitation butter is not butter. Imitation crab is not crab.
These medicines are the same chemical, therefore the same product.
I will however grant that while calling store brand painkillers “imitation ibuprofen” is nonsense, calling them “imitation advil” is okay because advil is a brand. Though in my opinion it should be avoided because it carries an implication of inferiority that is simply not the case.
Yeah, I thought the same! I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to share it around, since I think the world would be a better place if more people knew about this!
Generics are literally a fact of life over here (UK) and the fact that Americans are going insane over them is wild to me. The NHS will prescribe generics as standard because they’re cheaper to supply and they’re literally the same drug.
My mother has a whole goody-bag of medication and there’s not a single brand name to be seen. They’ve kept her going for >10 years.
The problem is that large drug companies abuse our patent systems to keep their drugs exclusive for longer than should be allowed.
Look at EPI pens. The drug is just Adrenaline, you can get a vial of that anywhere as long as you have a prescription. But the EPI pen mechanism itself is patented. So no other manufacturer can sell an easy to use, pre measured dose of Adrenaline without violating the patent. That’s why EPI pens cost hundreds of dollars instead of the 20 bucks they probably actually cost to produce. And you need that mechanism, because no one with a throat that’s closing is going to be able to calmly pull out and ampule or vial, measure the right dose into a syringe, and get it into their system before they pass out from anaphylaxis.
Wow, damn I had no idea. It’s criminal that they’re allowed to price gouge people like that!
I’d understand if it was some frivolous cosmetic thing made from anglerfish caviar or something equally absurd, but this is lifesaving medicine. I wish terrible things on the people who set those prices, that’s pure evil.
New drugs get a period of time where the company that developed it has exclusive manufacturing rights. The idea is that if anyone can start making the drug immediately, there’s not a good reason for companies to spend money to develop new drugs. However if demand for a drug is greater than the ability of the creating company to produce the drug, other companies are allowed to temporarily step in and make up the difference.
I think there’s something similar in terms of initial patent rights, but it’s awful that people who need these meds are footing the bill. I realise now that I have been spoiled by the NHS. The idea of charging people for medical care that they need is unthinkable to me. It’s heartbreaking.
Of course they are, that’s what it means, it’s copied from the original.
There are also fakes that do not contain real medicine, those are not knockoffs, because they do NOT copy the medicine, only the packaging. The knockoffs are not decidedly fake because they actually work.
It’s weird that they call them knock-offs, they’re the same drug, just made by a different company with a different name.
This is bad because it will increase prices for these drugs.
Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.
They are absolutely 100% imitations copied from an original. Just because the imitation is good or even perfect, doesn’t make it any less an imitation or knockoff.
Edit2:
There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, even if it’s identical it’s still a knockoff, and it will always be considered “cheap” because it’s not an original product.
I find it strange that the perception is that these medicine copies are not knockoffs because they are well made??? Because in medicine that’s very common, is widely sold as cheaper alternatives, and generally has the exact same effect as the original. And it’s perfectly legitimate once the patents expire.
It is chemically indistinguishable. This is usually not the case for imitations or knockoffs in other market sectors. So it should be highlighted to prevent a misleading narrative.
So what? That doesn’t make them not imitations or copies, and it’s called an exact copy and is not unusual, and it’s still a copy. No matter how accurate good and efficient, doesn’t change that it’s a copy of an original heavily researched product.
These new weight loss medicines are Nobel Price material, no doubt it’s not the knock offs that will get the Nobel Price for copying what someone else did.
The original comment you replied to said
They used quotes to point out that those words usually imply an inferior quality, something which doesn’t do what it says that it does, something that is produced without permission, etc.
While the drugs may still be copies, word choice can affect how people perceive the quality / efficacy of them.
A knock off is a copy, a cheap knock off is a cheap copy.
There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
In medicine it’s quite common that cheaper copies or knockoffs are identical to the original product, and those are very common to become available when patents have expired.
While I can find definitions that call it “an inferior copy” (link), that’s not the point. Common usage has made it so that people will assume things about the quality or efficacy of the medication when certain words are used. Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.
Often when patents expire and other options emerge, they are called “generics” or “store brand” versions. Those terms don’t carry the negative associations.
I agree, I just find it strange that that is the perception of medicine that is a knockoff of an original, because that’s very common, is widely sold, and generally has the exact same effect as the original.
A knockoff is also used for a cheaper copy of an original. Cheaper as in price, not necessarily quality, although that is often the case, it doesn’t have to be. As is usually NOT the case when it regards medicine. The cheaper copy (knockoff) can usually be used interchangeably.
There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, it will always be considered cheap because it’s a knockoff and not an original product.
Thats like saying there is imitation water.
Hey, this isn’t real water! This asshole just combined one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms!
Did you know there’s an abundance of H²O in the world, and that it kills people every year? It can literally kill you, so we need to ban it!
I’m more worried about this new Dihydrogen Monoxide I keep hearing about.
Jesus Christ! We need to ban it now!
“Imitation” very strongly implies that it is not in actuality the thing being imitated. Imitation butter is not butter. Imitation crab is not crab.
These medicines are the same chemical, therefore the same product.
I will however grant that while calling store brand painkillers “imitation ibuprofen” is nonsense, calling them “imitation advil” is okay because advil is a brand. Though in my opinion it should be avoided because it carries an implication of inferiority that is simply not the case.
Just like going to buy corn in the grocery store is ripping off the Incan farmer who domesticated them 10000 years ago
Or “pirate” the drug like they do with insulin.
Insulin, and a lot of other stuff, it’s pretty awesome! I watched this talk from Defcon recently. It’s pretty sick.
Half way through and I’m hooked. What an amazing share. Thanks
Yeah, I thought the same! I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to share it around, since I think the world would be a better place if more people knew about this!
Does the US not have generic unbranded drugs?
Generics are literally a fact of life over here (UK) and the fact that Americans are going insane over them is wild to me. The NHS will prescribe generics as standard because they’re cheaper to supply and they’re literally the same drug.
My mother has a whole goody-bag of medication and there’s not a single brand name to be seen. They’ve kept her going for >10 years.
Oh we have generics all over the place.
The problem is that large drug companies abuse our patent systems to keep their drugs exclusive for longer than should be allowed.
Look at EPI pens. The drug is just Adrenaline, you can get a vial of that anywhere as long as you have a prescription. But the EPI pen mechanism itself is patented. So no other manufacturer can sell an easy to use, pre measured dose of Adrenaline without violating the patent. That’s why EPI pens cost hundreds of dollars instead of the 20 bucks they probably actually cost to produce. And you need that mechanism, because no one with a throat that’s closing is going to be able to calmly pull out and ampule or vial, measure the right dose into a syringe, and get it into their system before they pass out from anaphylaxis.
Wow, damn I had no idea. It’s criminal that they’re allowed to price gouge people like that!
I’d understand if it was some frivolous cosmetic thing made from anglerfish caviar or something equally absurd, but this is lifesaving medicine. I wish terrible things on the people who set those prices, that’s pure evil.
New drugs get a period of time where the company that developed it has exclusive manufacturing rights. The idea is that if anyone can start making the drug immediately, there’s not a good reason for companies to spend money to develop new drugs. However if demand for a drug is greater than the ability of the creating company to produce the drug, other companies are allowed to temporarily step in and make up the difference.
I think there’s something similar in terms of initial patent rights, but it’s awful that people who need these meds are footing the bill. I realise now that I have been spoiled by the NHS. The idea of charging people for medical care that they need is unthinkable to me. It’s heartbreaking.
Of course they are, that’s what it means, it’s copied from the original.
There are also fakes that do not contain real medicine, those are not knockoffs, because they do NOT copy the medicine, only the packaging. The knockoffs are not decidedly fake because they actually work.