>blantatly skirting patent laws

Why is this a bad thing? The quickest way to fix the medical/insurance/bureaucracy complex is to just allow people to sell direct to consumer.

The best (worst) example of this is CPAP. Ideally you'd just be able to go and buy one for $300, but instead there is a complex around "necessity" and "prescription", which creates an effective monopoly where the exact same hardware can be sold at different price points with software locked features.

If even a "simple" mechanical device like this which violates no patents and can't materially harm a person in any way can be restricted on grounds of paternalistic "safety", then one would be right to remain skeptical of the claim that the FDA is restricting action against unauthorized semaglutide knockoffs to

>safeguard consumers from drugs for which the FDA cannot verify quality, safety, or efficacy.

> blantatly skirting patent laws

Can you please explain (TFA doesn't mention patent laws, just unregulated drugs)? For example, my understanding is that semaglutide is protected by patent in the US - I had assumed HIMS was including semaglutide in some of their formulations under an agreement with the patent holder, but I guess that's not correct?

Side note, I'm all for the true innovators being able to patent drugs (like semaglutide) that they put a lot of research dollars into, but seriously fuck all these additional "method of delivery" and "formulation" patents that are bullshit that just get added on later by the patent holder solely as a way to try to restrict the entry of generics into the market after the original patent expires.

Everyone can make their own compounding drug in their basements, thanks to Telegram and other hidden platforms: source sema/tirz, get bac water, mix them.

> blantatly skirting patent laws

Implied but not explicitly stated in the FDA announcement: the compounders’ real crime is not paying their protection money.

Mochi health too

I’m generally happy to see IP disrespected.