Scott Alexander examines and expresses skepticism about a theory that attributes high-dose melatonin supplements to patent avoidance, while reflecting on the challenges of evaluating such claims. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a theory about why melatonin supplements are often sold in doses much higher than recommended. The theory, proposed by Dr. Richard Wurtman, suggests that supplement manufacturers used higher doses to avoid paying royalties on a patent for lower doses. Scott expresses skepticism about this explanation, citing reasons such as the unusualness of patenting only up to a certain dose and the fact that many supplements are sold in high doses. He also notes that some companies do sell melatonin at the recommended dose without legal issues. Scott reflects on the challenges of evaluating such claims, balancing expert knowledge against rational skepticism. An update clarifies that the patent likely influenced initial supplement production but has since expired, though high-dose traditions persist. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that the EpiPen price hike is due to over-regulation and cronyism in the pharmaceutical industry, not lack of regulation as suggested by Vox. Longer summary

This post criticizes Vox's article on EpiPen price hikes, arguing that the problem isn't lack of regulation but over-regulation and cronyism. Scott Alexander contrasts the pharmaceutical industry with the unregulated chair industry, pointing out that chair prices don't suddenly spike 400%. He then details how FDA regulations and patent laws prevent competitors from entering the EpiPen market, despite the drug being off-patent and inexpensive to produce. The post highlights several failed attempts by companies to create generic versions of EpiPens, and how lobbying by the manufacturer Mylan has helped maintain their monopoly. Scott uses an extended analogy comparing the situation to a hypothetical government-controlled chair market to illustrate the absurdity of the current system. Shorter summary