# Fashion + Tech



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 10, 2014)

They're not practical YET, but the 3D printed dress...we're clearly getting closer and closer to Rodenberry's replicators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdRswasftfI&sns=em


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 10, 2014)

Interesting. With the single segments being inflexible we're talking about: Printed Armour!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 10, 2014)

With the right material, yes.  And the smaller the individual triangles, the more flexible the "fabric".


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2014)

uh, what was the model wearing under that plastic dress? She looked , uh, um like she was going commando.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2014)

She's actually wearing "flesh-tone" undies for that naked look.  (You can see a bra strap at one point.)


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2014)

I see the strap, but, ummm. Perhap we should ignore what I have pointed out. I think I am exceeding the limits of the grandma rule.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm not sure I see the point of this vs. going to a store or ordering online. Not just for the dress, but all printers. How often does someone think they'll use it?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2014)

I see your point goldomark, it was a lot of work for such a simple plan with a lot of holes in it.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 11, 2014)

With some of the newer rubber-like flexible materials 3D printing tech makes more sense for things like shoes, than it does other types of clothing. We might see it in local stores for made-to-order hard goods, in the future, but I doubt that it will really ever be viable in the average home. Go online, design your shoes, coffee mug, desk lamp, etc., and then drop by the shop the next day to pick it up; maybe.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2014)

For the time being, it is not quite easily available/economical for the home, but that will eventually change, I am sure. I noticed that it took a lot of time and detail to clear the unused medium from the finished product. that is a present limiting factor. I am thinking it will eventually become easier to work with. I AM, however, concerned about the need for the masks, people being sensitive to the medium powder. It could cause lung problems for some people.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 11, 2014)

It's more like a proof of concept for the idea of folding stuff to better use the volume of the printer, isn't it? Especially if they provide software which automagically folds you model. You're no longer limited printing kobolds and goblins, but can print a collapsable dragon, too!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I see the strap, but, ummm. Perhap we should ignore what I have pointed out. I think I am exceeding the limits of the grandma rule.




Relax, dude.  It is a bit of shadow.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2014)

That was wierd.  A very holey dress.  Looks good on a model, not likely to get much use by real people in regular situations (ie. not a night club where see thru clothes are the norm).

Presumably that's part art, and part aspect of the current technology.  When 3d printing resolution gets down to super tiny nano fibers the result will be more like fabric and not HoleyTriangleTech.

The printing process hassle is also likely just an artifact of the current tech and the fact that this was a big experiment.

What they learn from this project (model pre-folding, all the excess matrix material) will likely lead to improvements and streamlining.

Some other things to consider:
3d printing became accessible because the patents on plastic 3d printing expired and the DIY companies sprung up to bring us the technology.

The 3d metal printing patents will expire "soon" (per a seminar I went to on the topic), and that should unlock more materials to print with in the next few years

eventually, I'd expect a multi-extruder 3d printer with spools for multiple plastics (type and color), metal, paper/cotton/bio-matter and being capable of mixing and mingling materials (well, maybe not metal, it's hot).

I'm imagining printing with spider silk or synthetic cotton or wood pulp.  That would unlock some different textures and materials.

This might lead to printing circuits, custom cases for our Android phone core (with the printed circuit pairing up the to brain to enable buttons, etc)  Clothing, shoes, jewelry, toys, tools (need a new pliers?).


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 11, 2014)

Janx said:


> That was wierd.  A very holey dress.  Looks good on a model, not likely to get much use by real people in regular situations (ie. not a night club where see thru clothes are the norm).
> 
> Presumably that's part art, and part aspect of the current technology.  When 3d printing resolution gets down to super tiny nano fibers the result will be more like fabric and not HoleyTriangleTech.
> 
> ...




There's already a wood/plastic hybrid filament available for extruder style printers. Here's a video in which it's used:

[video=youtube;g4ZUJ1d-Jks]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ZUJ1d-Jks[/video]

I've also seen dual extruder printers in which one feeds ABS and the other feeds a rubber-like flexible material.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 11, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Interesting. With the single segments being inflexible we're talking about: Printed Armour!




Indeed. Instant chainmail bikinis - just add chrome paint.



goldomark said:


> I'm not sure I see the point of this vs. going to a store or ordering online. Not just for the dress, but all printers. How often does someone think they'll use it?




One thing I can think of, a couple of technological generations down the line when the production quality is better, is that you could potentially go into a store, step into a full-body laser scanner, and pick up a set of freshly-printed made-to-measure clothes later that day. You could even preview how they'll look on a virtual model of yourself before deciding what to print.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 11, 2014)

printing in wood?! way kule!


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2014)

MarkB said:


> Indeed. Instant chainmail bikinis - just add chrome paint.




wait a few more years, and you can print a chainmail bikini in METAL.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> printing in wood?! way kule!




Albrecht Dürer is NOT impressed.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 12, 2014)

My mom talks about the paper dress she got during the 60s...  Yeah, this is equally as bizarre and useless (at least at the moment).


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 12, 2014)

Dunno, I think that dress doesn't look to different from some of the haute couture I've seen over the years. Trying to use unusual materials in fashion is an ongoing thing. And as long as you wear something under that printed dress it's actually 'wearable' - which sometimes cannot be said of haute couture. I actually think it looks rather intriguing, particularly considering it's mostly a technology demo.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2014)

Slow and pricey, yes, but a killer of a success as a proof of concept.  As this video spreads, more will be inspired.

There have been futurists talking about what 3D printers may be capable of doing as the list of materials they can work with broadens.  The biotech and pharma industries are, in many ways, the most interesting.  For instance, if a printer can print drugs with the right formula and chemicals, that will mean a tectonic shift in both the legitimate and illicit drug industries and infrastructure.

Biotech, OTOH, will be limited by what they can fit in the chamber.  But what this dress's construction shows is that "what fits" is possibly much greater than people think.  Imagine, for instance, how much of an artificial mesh (designed to support organs of those afflicted by diseases that attack the body's connective tissue, like Marfan's) could be made in that fashion?

Hmmm...


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 12, 2014)

Jhaelen said:


> Dunno, I think that dress doesn't look to different from some of the haute couture I've seen over the years. <SNIP>[ /QUOTE]
> Paper dresses were function fashion too, just so long as it didn't rain. :/


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 12, 2014)

Jhaelen said:


> Dunno, I think that dress doesn't look to different from some of the haute couture I've seen over the years. Trying to use unusual materials in fashion is an ongoing thing. And as long as you wear something under that printed dress it's actually 'wearable' - which sometimes cannot be said of haute couture. I actually think it looks rather intriguing, particularly considering it's mostly a technology demo.






Thunderfoot said:


> Jhaelen said:
> 
> 
> > Dunno, I think that dress doesn't look to different from some of the haute couture I've seen over the years. <SNIP>[ /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 12, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Slow and pricey, yes, but a killer of a success as a proof of concept.  As this video spreads, more will be inspired.  There have been futurists talking about what 3D printers may be capable of doing as the list of materials they can work with broadens.  The biotech and pharma industries are, in many ways, the most interesting.  For instance, if a printer can print drugs with the right formula and chemicals, that will mean a tectonic shift in both the legitimate and illicit drug industries and infrastructure.  Biotech, OTOH, will be limited by what they can fit in the chamber.  But what this dress's construction shows is that "what fits" is possibly much greater than people think.  Imagine, for instance, how much of an artificial mesh (designed to support organs of those afflicted by diseases that attack the body's connective tissue, like Marfan's) could be made in that fashion?  Hmmm...




as proof of concept it is going to go really far in helping the market

bio materials: If cliniqus and hospitls had acces to sterile medium and equipment to produce polymer mesh of the size and mesh size needed, it would be great!  one of the problems of the second mesh I received was that a manufacture had to custom make what I needed - some 700 stitches worth of work was done on me 28 Aug 13

Can you imagine artificial skin that could be made for burn wards or for dermal disease needs??


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2014)

And- here's the key part- on demand.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 12, 2014)

uh, right. I forgot to say that?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And- here's the key part- on demand.




"On demand" is not necessarily better.  Books printed "on demand" are typically more costly than a similar book printed in the normal manner.  "On demand" misses economy of scale.

Moreover, specifically when talking about medical uses, quality control is a major issue.  It sounds good that the hospital might have a printer right there to make things it needed - but do you know how *clean* something needs to be for medical purposes?  How *absolutely pure* ingredients need to be?  Distributing production makes quality control a distributed issue.  Each hospital would have to take on the task of maintaining quality control for themselves.  That would not be easy or cheap.  Or at least, so suggest my friends who work in hospitals, and in biopharma QA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2014)

Umbran said:


> "On demand" is not necessarily better.  Books printed "on demand" are typically more costly than a similar book printed in the normal manner.  "On demand" misses economy of scale.
> 
> Moreover, specifically when talking about medical uses, quality control is a major issue.  It sounds good that the hospital might have a printer right there to make things it needed - but do you know how *clean* something needs to be for medical purposes?  How *absolutely pure* ingredients need to be?  Distributing production makes quality control a distributed issue.  Each hospital would have to take on the task of maintaining quality control for themselves.  That would not be easy or cheap.  Or at least, so suggest my friends who work in hospitals, and in biopharma QA.




Oh, I know about the economies of scale issue- that is one of the reasons I don't buy ANYTHING that is print on demand, but JIT has its own benefits.

As for cleanliness, yeah, I know about that as well.  My dad is an MD with a masters in Public Health, so I grew up in and around hospitals and with lectures about cleanliness, etc.  Medical printers would be the most expensive of the bunch- like any that would be used in aerospace- due to the need to maintain their cleanliness.

And don't forget, we already have pharmacies that do on-site compounding, so that is a known issue.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 13, 2014)

I have had enough surgeries to get a good base of knowledge of the need of cleanliness. especially considering the post op infections I have been fighting. Having said that, I sit here thinking about what you mention, Umban. The manufacturer would need to be pharmacy clean. That alone would be rather cost prohibitive.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I have had enough surgeries to get a good base of knowledge of the need of cleanliness. especially considering the post op infections I have been fighting. Having said that, I sit here thinking about what you mention, Umban. The manufacturer would need to be pharmacy clean. That alone would be rather cost prohibitive.




To be honest, it is probably harder to produce than surgical cleanliness.  Surgical cleanliness is produced largely by using things that are disposable or can be put in an autoclave.  And the compounding pharmacies have to prevent chemical cross-contamination, but they're typically about *oral* medications, and the human digestive system handles a lot.  

The procedures to meet FDA approval for the original chemical (or biological) production of drugs, though, is an order more complicated and difficult.  And the mechanism of a 3D printer has more in common with the biopharma production machinery than it does with surgical scalpels - pipes and nozzles, small, good places for microbes and contaminants to hide.

Not that it couldn't be done.  But in the near term, I would expect it not to be done on the scale of each hospital.  Maybe one production facility in each major city...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 13, 2014)

Near term...say...up to 2030?  I agree.  Long term, though, its a technology like any other: it will become more efficient, and as adopters continue to buy, prices will fall.  Miniaturization will make the machinery more practical to operate in smaller scale operations.

And, of course, the ILLICIT drug trade will be all over that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And, of course, the ILLICIT drug trade will be all over that.




The excellent thing about 3D printers is how they allow us to create physical forms.  It is not a "perform arbitrary chemical reactions machine".

The drug trade isn't cared so much about the *shape* of things, merely their chemical composition.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 13, 2014)

I suspect that spokeswoman is not a natural redhead.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Dec 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> To be honest, it is probably harder to produce than surgical cleanliness.  Surgical cleanliness is produced largely by using things that are disposable or can be put in an autoclave.  And the compounding pharmacies have to prevent chemical cross-contamination, but they're typically about *oral* medications, and the human digestive system handles a lot.
> 
> The procedures to meet FDA approval for the original chemical (or biological) production of drugs, though, is an order more complicated and difficult.  And the mechanism of a 3D printer has more in common with the biopharma production machinery than it does with surgical scalpels - pipes and nozzles, small, good places for microbes and contaminants to hide.
> 
> Not that it couldn't be done.  But in the near term, I would expect it not to be done on the scale of each hospital.  Maybe one production facility in each major city...




re: 1/ major city
That sounds feasible. The clean room conditions needed just to manufacture the medium would be tricky at best, not to mention the 'nooks and crannies' of the mechanism of the print head hiding little buggies and such.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The excellent thing about 3D printers is how they allow us to create physical forms.  It is not a "perform arbitrary chemical reactions machine".
> 
> The drug trade isn't cared so much about the *shape* of things, merely their chemical composition.




True, but just last year, I was looking at articles by people in the medical/pharma field* who were speculating that the tech could be bent to the task of creating a more efficient way of creating & distributing medications.

And if it is possible to do so, the illicit drug trade will be alllllll over it.  

It isn't a today issue, or even a tomorrow issue.  But it could well be a day after tomorrow tech.

* Such as:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-17744314

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/public...ional-Drug-Printing-Potential-in-the-Pharmacy


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but just last year, I was looking at articles by people in the medical/pharma field* who were speculating that the tech could be bent to the task of creating a more efficient way of creating & distributing medications.




Not so much creating as packaging.  In one of the articles you linked to speaks about, for example:

"If common medications for chronic diseases were available in the 3-D printer, a customized “polypill” could be created that could potentially contain all the medications a patient needs in 1 pill. Think of how much easier it would be for a patient to take 1 pill daily instead of 15, of how much this could improve adherence." 

So, more about dispensing than creating drugs.  

And another speaker also notes:

"Meeting the regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration could be a hurdle to be cleared before large-scale use of 3-D printed products could be realized. We are talking about an immensely complex regulation process. Different manufacturing regulations and state board requirements could impose obstacles to the adoption of the drug printers in practice. An imperative difference must be established to distinguish drug printers as manufacturing or compounding technologies." 



> And if it is possible to do so, the illicit drug trade will be alllllll over it.




For the illicit trade - so they can make what they have in the form of a pill.  Yippee.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Not so much creating as packaging.  In one of the articles you linked to speaks about, for example:
> 
> "If common medications for chronic diseases were available in the 3-D printer, a customized “polypill” could be created that could potentially contain all the medications a patient needs in 1 pill. Think of how much easier it would be for a patient to take 1 pill daily instead of 15, of how much this could improve adherence."
> 
> So, more about dispensing than creating drugs.




Actually, we're kinda talking the same thing.  A polypill is a combination of drugs in one gelcap, capsule, solid pill (or other forms).  There are a few in the market today.  

To create one with a 3D printer, you'd have to combine the pharmaceuticals, binders and whatnot according to a formula, just like a standard pill today.  So in the sense that it is packaging things from a known formula, it is sort of "dispensing".  

But it is doing so in individually customized pills- something we can't really do today.  Not with any efficiency, that is.  And since it would be making pills that at pharmacologically unique, it would be "creating drugs".

Ditto the case in which they're talking about tailoring things like chemotherapy or gene therapy.




> And another speaker also notes:
> 
> "Meeting the regulatory requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration could be a hurdle to be cleared before large-scale use of 3-D printed products could be realized. We are talking about an immensely complex regulation process. Different manufacturing regulations and state board requirements could impose obstacles to the adoption of the drug printers in practice. An imperative difference must be established to distinguish drug printers as manufacturing or compounding technologies."




That's all a given.  Of course there would be regulatory hurdles to jump.  And the EU and other major countries would have their own regulations as well.




> For the illicit trade - so they can make what they have in the form of a pill.  Yippee.




Well, yeah.

They already make their own pills.  If the 3D tech is compact and clean enough, it would make detecting their manufacturing sites much harder to find.  If pharma-printers become able to work from downloadable formulas or data on a removable drive and the right mix of ingredients, the task become harder still.

For instance, if the Hell's Angels want to make a meth lab today, one hurdle they face is that it is currently much harder to acquire sudafed than it was 30 years ago.  But if your pharma-printer can make sudafed- or just the ingredients you need from it- with substances that aren't scrutinized the same way sudafed is, meth labs get that much harder to find.

It is potentially like how, before OKC and a couple of other events, certain fertilizers could be ordered with impunity.  But now, ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not only scrutinized, each maker includes microscopic beads that are unique identifiers for the manufacturers.

...except you might not be able to include analogous tracing techniques in a pharma-printer, since that could potentially screw u the machine and/or the efficacy of the product.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But it is doing so in individually customized pills- something we can't really do today.  Not with any efficiency, that is.  And since it would be making pills that at pharmacologically unique, it would be "creating drugs".




With respect, we *can* do it today.  It isn't all that difficult.  It is called "compounding", and any compounding pharmacy can do it.  My wife (a veterinarian) gets things compounded for her patients pretty much every day.

We don't do it much these days for humans much, not because of an technical difficulties*, but because insurance companies find it unnecessary, and won't pay for it.  And it is only an option for drugs to be taken with the same frequency and conditions.  You can't compound the "Once Daily, with food" with the "Twice daily, on an empty stomach" drugs, and the 3d printer won't change that.

*There are some - mostly in the binding agents.  F'rex: some meds like binder X, others binder Y, and you *can't* put them together, as they won't bind up properly.



> Ditto the case in which they're talking about tailoring things like chemotherapy or gene therapy.




Again, chemotherapy drugs are already tailored.  Carefully.  And, since they are generally intravenous, you don't need a printer for them.



> For instance, if the Hell's Angels want to make a meth lab today, one hurdle they face is that it is currently much harder to acquire sudafed than it was 30 years ago.  But if your pharma-printer can make sudafed- or just the ingredients you need from it- with substances that aren't scrutinized the same way sudafed is, meth labs get that much harder to find.




Well, this is my point - it might be able to print you a pill of sudafed, but only if it has pseudoephedrine in its stock.  It _can't make pseudoephedrine_ from base materials.  It is a printer, not a "general chemical reaction machine".  You're asking for a printer that not only puts out photo-quality prints, but also creates its own ink!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2014)

Like I said, "not with any efficiency."  Compounding takes a fair bit of time: there is something my mom had to get from a local compounding pharmacy here in D/FW, one of our country's top 10 metropolitan areas.  It took them nearly a week to get the supplies for that particular combo.

And as for the base materials point you're raising, Prof. Lee Cronin of Glascow University is one who talking about doing _exactly_ that.  He is working towards using 3D printing to make pharmaceuticals from base elements & some simple reagents.  While he says he's still 5-10 years away from a real commercially viable "chemputer" (as he calls them), at a TEDtalk, he did claim that his prototype model successfully produced ibuprofen.

Like the dress, it was probably slowly and inefficiently made, and even more likely, was not pure enough to be medically useful,mwhich is why he has said that his work is in "the Sci-Fi" stage.

http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2014)

Side note on binders: they're a non-trivial issue.

My mom has been on synthroid my whole life.  They switched her to a generic @5 years ago, to save money.  She lost 50lbs and developed what they initially thought was ALS.  Turns out, she had had a toxic reaction to a binder in the generic.  They had to put her back on synthroid.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like I said, "not with any efficiency."  Compounding takes a fair bit of time: there is something my mom had to get from a local compounding pharmacy here in D/FW, one of our country's top 10 metropolitan areas.  It took them nearly a week to get the supplies for that particular combo.




And, as I said, my wife gets things done on a daily basis.  That *one* combination took a while does not say it is done without *any* efficiency.

And, much of that has nothing to do with the tech, and with the frequency of use - economy of scale strikes again.  If insurance companies paid for compounding, it would happen more often, and it would be far more efficient, and cheaper, even with normal technology.



> And as for the base materials point you're raising, Prof. Lee Cronin of Glascow University is one who talking about doing _exactly_ that.  He is working towards using 3D printing to make pharmaceuticals from base elements & some simple reagents.  While he says he's still 5-10 years away from a real commercially viable "chemputer" (as he calls them), at a TEDtalk, he did claim that his prototype model successfully produced ibuprofen.




With respect, many things are discussed in TED talks - most of them never come to pass.  We have been 5-10 years away from... flying cars, fusion power, a base on the Moon, and lots of things, for several decades now.  That a  noted gentleman says it, doesn't make it so.

Basically, "3D printing" is the new geek black.  The phrase "3d printed" in headlines is clickbait.  If you listen to what everyone claims, it looks like 3d printing will save the world from all ills (and, in fact, already has, because you'll make your time machine with a 3d printer too).  "3D printing" is trendy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2014)

To clarify "efficiency":

1) while your wife does compounding on a daily basis, she's probably not held to the same standards as the guys & gals doing the same work for humans.  While what works for humans may be given to animals- I'm sharing an OTC  allergy med with one of our Border Collies (both of us on doctors' orders)- it doesn't go the other way.  One of my prescriptions is also used in the care of livestock.  I see it in feed stores and veterinary practices all over here in Texas.  The same daily dose I take at @$200/month (before insurance) is @$6 a jar.  But it is not deemed suitable for human consumption.  Different additives, different purity levels.

2) while compounding occurs on a daily basis even for humans, the vast majority of pharmaceuticals consumed by humans are not customized  but standardized at the paint of manufacture.  We simply don't have the tech _right now_ to customize every prescription for every patient in the USA.  This could change that.

As for TEDtalks, and how 3D printing is the new black for geekspeak, yeah, you're right.  

It could be all pie in the sky musings, but the Scots prof isn't exactly a nobody.  He's got serious trophies on his mantle for his achievements in chemistry.  If the man claims to have created ibuprofen with a 3D printer of some kind, I'm not in a position to debunk him.

Could it be he's overestimating the potential of the tech?  Overly optimistic about the timetable to economic viability of a nascent tech?  Or outright wrong?  Committing a fraud?  Sure!  Anyone can make an error or tell a lie.

But, near as I can tell, the only critiques of his claims have been ones such as the difficulties of complying with legal regulations, purity controls and the like, not that what he claims to have done is untrue or impossible.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 15, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) while your wife does compounding on a daily basis, she's probably not held to the same standards as the guys & gals doing the same work for humans.




My wife writes the prescriptions. The actual compounding work is done by the *same people* as who do it for humans.  Veterinarians and physicians for humans use the exact same pharmacies. 



> While what works for humans may be given to animals- I'm sharing an OTC  allergy med with one of our Border Collies (both of us on doctors' orders)- it doesn't go the other way.  One of my prescriptions is also used in the care of livestock.  I see it in feed stores and veterinary practices all over here in Texas.  The same daily dose I take at @$200/month (before insurance) is @$6 a jar.




Yep.  But not for the reason you think.



> But it is not deemed suitable for human consumption.  Different additives, different purity levels.




Sorry, Danny, but you're wrong. See my previous note about using the same pharmacies - those pharmacies are pulling from the same bottles for Aunt May as for Fluffy.

Most specifically on the "purity level" thing.  If your vet knowingly prescribed an "impure" drug for your dog, and that dog died, your veterinarian would get sued, and lose their licence, just like your human doctor would.  In general, if the drug is used in both humans and animals, they use the same source.  It isn't worth the extra cost to run two different production streams for the same stuff.  And no, it is not that the batches that don't meet QA requirements become animal drugs - that would get someone sued for selling inferior product.

You do see them for different prices, yes.  Humans get charged more due to the impact of health insurance companies on human medicine pricing, not because the drug is different.  



> 2) while compounding occurs on a daily basis even for humans, the vast majority of pharmaceuticals consumed by humans are not customized  but standardized at the paint of manufacture.  We simply don't have the tech _right now_ to customize every prescription for every patient in the USA.  This could change that.




They are standardized at the point of manufacture because, for the most part, that's sufficient.  Changing your dose of Advil a few milligrams one way or another isn't going to make it work phenomenally better.  If you need very detailed dosing (by body mass, for example), we can do that via oral liquid or injectable medications, or patch-delivery in some cases.  

Remember that while we know a great deal of how drugs work on people, in general, that's by way of statistical sampling.  In order to do better, you need to have more detailed information on how the individual patient interacts with the drugs in question - and to date we don't have that.  We usually don't have the information and understanding of the individual biochemistry required to make use of very detailed dosing.  



> It could be all pie in the sky musings, but the Scots prof isn't exactly a nobody.




Yes.  And Einstein wasn't a nobody, but he got it wrong about quantum mechanics.  



> He's got serious trophies on his mantle for his achievements in chemistry.  If the man claims to have created ibuprofen with a 3D printer of some kind, I'm not in a position to debunk him.




So, he could make a very specific machine to make a very specific compound.  Big whoop.  We have those already that operate with economies of scale.  We don't *need* a printer to make the drug.  Except in areas not served by the usual distribution systems, the value-add is in customized dosing and compounding, so Grandpa can take one pill a day instead of seven.  But, there are limits with what you can do there, for reasons previously noted.

If you need to get a wide variety of drugs into, say, much of Africa today, then having a machine that can do it all is darned useful.  But in most of North America, standard production is far more efficient.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2014)

To clarify, I know that the active ingredients themselves used in the compounding process are made in the same batches, so the furosemide (lasix) I take is chemically identical to the furosemide the vets prescribe to dogs, etc.

It's all the other stuff.  The additives in the pills given to humans are regulated by the FDA, while those given to animals are under the jurisdiction of the CVM subdivision of the FDA, which has different standards.  Some of those additives are not as pure as the versions we get.  Others additives are not approved for human consumption because their biochemistry has subtle differences from ours.  Some veterinary meds have absorptive aids in greater or lesser amounts than the human versions.  Ditto flavorings or coloring or other additives.

I'm not just making this up:


> However, medications produced for livestock and intended to be mixed with feed may not undergo the same level of manufacturing scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as human drugs do. These products may have more impurities that don't represent a health concern for the animals, but could for people.
> 
> - Michael Bihari, MD




http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/animalRx_faq.htm

http://drugs.about.com/bio/Michael-Bihari-MD-45716.htm



> So, he could make a very specific machine to make a very specific compound. Big whoop.




That he did so- IF he did so- from basic elements & reagents in a 3D "Chemprinter" IS a big whoop.  If he is right, with time, his machines will be able to do that with any and all drugs for which he has a formula. That, essentially, would make any pharmacy anywhere in the world that has one into a JIT compounding pharmacy.

That is a game changer.


----------

