Gas vap worth it ?

[Fritillary]

Yes - I shouldn't have posted in terms of 'defence' of course, but in terms of reasonable objection. Sorry! No-one wants to be fined and no-one wants to put their inspector in a difficult position either.

For those like me, treating only a few hives and with plenty of time, it's a small outlay for Api Bioxal and cleaning of my cheap vaping device isn't a problem.

But seriously, if there is a problem for those using expensive vaping kit and treating large nos. of hives who find it not suited for its stated application, they do have a point, no? Whether complaint would result in an improvement or alternative version of the product, I don't know. (We don't want to see vaporisation looked at askance!)

 

[pargyle]

Speaking again purely clinically, I can't understand why any company would invest in a formulation that was inconvenient to clean after use unless there was some benefit clinically over pure OA? If the licenced product were as 'clean' to use as pure OA then they'd mop up the market so why would they pursue an inferior marketing proposition especially as it would be easy enough to licence the pure OA?

That said, I fully accept, not all decisions taken by pharma are as enlightened as one might expect.

Because licensing pure OA would open the market to anyone wishing to sell pure OA ... there's no USP ... I believe that apibioxal created a product with some unique (and I remain to be convinced) beneficial additives in order to exploit the market for OA treatment for bees by whatever method beekeepers saw fit ... the fact that it does not work well in most sublimators just confirms that it was an oppprtunist venture.

Why do most pharma companies do things ? Very few are in business for philanthropic reasons ... you only need to look at the declared profits... what is sad is that the requirement for VMD licensing in the U.K. With its attendant cost had meant that some nice little companies producing niche products such as Hiveclean have had to withdraw from the market in the U.K.. whether or not you believe that the product was or was not beneficial it appears to me to be a very restrictive situation. Why livestock rules on the giving of medicines should also be applied to insects (honeybees) is beyond me.

I suspect that some mandarin in Whitehall will have me keeping records of what I fed my goldfish next !

 

[For want of a better word]

So this is illegal?
E

Only if you use it... the VMD licensed product made a terrible mess in the Varromoor vaporizer!

New trick is to use dried rhubarb leaves as fuel in the smoker as fuel

Chons da

 

[Karol]

I'm sorry Pargyle but I don't concur. The USP for licenced OA is the licence itself. A licenced OA would not allow just anyone else to sell OA. The other sellers would also have to obtain a licence for their OA product. I suspect the reason why other companies haven't gone down the pure OA route is that there is a commercial risk that they may not be able to prove it is as effective as the combination product apart from the fact that the hive treatment market is not that big.

Livestock rules IMHO is easy to understand because honey is bee puke and needs to be fit for human consumption.

 

[Beefriendly]

Because licensing pure OA would open the market to anyone wishing to sell pure OA ... there's no USP ...!

Nope.... the company who successfully registers the OA with the VMD has sole distribution .
Obvious; as otherwise you would be seeing lots of companies producing cheaper apibioxal....Each company needs a licence (or whatever) for VMD usage.

The additional ingredients in Apibioxal are not about effectiveness. The silica is there to absorb any moisture and prevent the powder becoming solid-anti-caking agent. Glucose monohydrate is widely used as an anti-oxidisation agent.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I'm sorry Pargyle but I don't concur. The USP for licenced OA is the licence itself.

USP?
Is that the same as NF....... National Formulary?

 

[B+.]

USP?
Is that the same as NF....... National Formulary?

USP = Unique Selling Point (something that makes your product different to any generic product and makes it worth more).
I knew that MBA would come in useful one day ;-)

 

[Erichalfbee]

USP = Unique Selling Point (something that makes your product different to any generic product and makes it worth more).
I knew that MBA would come in useful one day ;-)

Yeah?
I thought it might be United States Pharmacopeia/National Formulary
Shows what I know

 

[pargyle]

I'm sorry Pargyle but I don't concur. The USP for licenced OA is the licence itself. A licenced OA would not allow just anyone else to sell OA. The other sellers would also have to obtain a licence for their OA product. I suspect the reason why other companies haven't gone down the pure OA route is that there is a commercial risk that they may not be able to prove it is as effective as the combination product.

So ...as thousands of beekeepers currently use pure but unlicensed OA to illegally treat their bees by sublimation ... and the success was proved, if I recall correctly, by a study at Sussex university who stated (again as I recall) that treatment with pure OA by sublimation in a brood free period was 97% effective..

Why has someone not attempted to licence pure OA as a treatment for varroa? Are you saying that if I got VMD approval for PPOA (Phil's Pure OA) then nobody else could sell pure OA for treatment of varroa by sublimation of OA without a licence ? Indeed ... if they wanted one assumes that as pure OA had already been approved ... a licence would be automatic ?

If that's the case it would be an immense market opportunity - yet nobody has done it ?

Makes little sense...

 

[B+.]

Makes little sense...

I can see 2 obvious reasons why your suggestion wouldn't work:
1. It would cost a lot to get it through the licencing process.
2. A licence would not be granted since it is not a unique formulation.

 

[Ian123]

I think part of the problem is there no opportunity, you pay a fortune to go down the licensing route to a Very small number of beekeepers and end up charging 3x the price. All the beekeepers go down the road and buy the cheap stuff.

 

[Karol]

USP?
Is that the same as NF....... National Formulary?

 

[Repwoc]

2. A licence would not be granted since it is not a unique formulation.

Are veterinary medicines licences different (in this respect) to licences for human medicines? There are plenty of companies selling Aspirin, Paracetamol and so on. They are all the same chemical structure; or is Aspirin from Tesco not the same as Aspirin from ASDA?

 

[B+.]

Are veterinary medicines licences different (in this respect) to licences for human medicines? There are plenty of companies selling Aspirin, Paracetamol and so on. They are all the same chemical structure; or is Aspirin from Tesco not the same as Aspirin from ASDA?

The patent expired on those medicines a long time ago. We were talking about granting licences for novel compounds. When intellectual property rights expire, generic substitutes may enter the market and drive prices down.
OA is a generic substitute but it has no licence. That's why it is illegal.

 

[Repwoc]

The patent expired on those medicines a long time ago. We were talking about granting licences for novel compounds. When intellectual property rights expire, generic substitutes may enter the market and drive prices down.

Oxalic acid isn't a novel compound and you'd have a hard time patenting it for varroa control. A licence isn't the same as a patent.

 

[B+.]

You mean “Non Treaters”

Why are you disrespectful of the only way we will ever find bees that can manage varroa?

 

[B+.]

Oxalic acid isn't a novel compound and you'd have a hard time patenting it for varroa control. A licence isn't the same as a patent.

Of course it isn't. You introduced the medicine analogy

 

[Fritillary]

Why are you disrespectful of the only way we will ever find bees that can manage varroa?

Not how that was intended in the context I think...?

 

[Repwoc]

Of course it isn't. You introduced the medicine analogy

Yes I did - clearly licences are issued to companies to market pharmaceutical products that are identical to those licensed to other companies. As you say, these are products where the patents have expired and they are known as generic medicines. No one has a patent for treating varroosis with OA, so OA is effectively a generic medicine. If a licence was granted to market pure OA for this purpose presumably other companies could also obtain similar licences. There would be no exclusivity.

As has already been said, mixing the OA with other (probably inactive) substances makes the product more proprietary. Chemicals Laif s.r.l. has been granted a patent:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...7A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20180716&DB=&locale=#

See the Description and Claims sections. HMF is mentioned in the description, but not in the claims section. The main points of the product seem to be to make it easier for beekeepers to administer the correct dose - obviously weighing stuff is beyond our limited skills.

The patent application wasn't filed until 16/01/2017, about 13 months after the licence to market was granted.

 

[Karol]

Yes I did - clearly licences are issued to companies to market pharmaceutical products that are identical to those licensed to other companies. As you say, these are products where the patents have expired and they are known as generic medicines. No one has a patent for treating varroosis with OA, so OA is effectively a generic medicine.

But only if it has a licence as a medicine.

If a licence was granted to market pure OA for this purpose presumably other companies could also obtain similar licences. There would be no exclusivity.

Correct.

As has already been said, mixing the OA with other (probably inactive) substances makes the product more proprietary.

Not so. Proprietary in medicines speak effectively means exclusive to one manufacturer who owns the sole and only legal rights to the intellectual property of the product such rights prohibiting others from copying. The most common way this is achieved is through patenting but it is not the only means. Orphaned drug status conveys proprietary rights in a way similar to patenting where there is no prospect of the product being patented.

Chemicals Laif s.r.l. has been granted a patent:

I think you'll find that it hasn't. It has a published application pending a decision to grant, i.e. the formulation is not yet protected. Patent event code 121 is a timed out application which suggests that Laif may not be successful in getting the application granted.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...7A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20180716&DB=&locale=#

See the Description and Claims sections. HMF is mentioned in the description, but not in the claims section. The main points of the product seem to be to make it easier for beekeepers to administer the correct dose - obviously weighing stuff is beyond our limited skills.

The patent application wasn't filed until 16/01/2017, about 13 months after the licence to market was granted.

Which will probably spell doom for the patent application as you cannot get a patent granted for previously published prior art.