 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2006beware of generic drugs...
i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. ~ curtis ============ president bush is pushing for the food and drug administration to approve more generic drugs and to do it faster. the idea is to save money for insurance companies and government programs such s medicaid and veterans affairs that spend billion of dollars on prescription drugs. it should also benefit consumers without insurance. generics are supposed to be identical to their brand name counterparts. manufacturers must prove only that their "copy cat" product is absorbed into the body just like the original brand name drug. since research costs are significantly lower generics are generally cheaper, sometimes by 50 % or more. valium prescribed for anxiety costs $30 for 30 pills. the azepam cost about $9 dollars. prozac costs roughly $100 dollars for a month's supply while generic fluoxetine is $35. not all savings are so dramatic, but for someone taking three or four prescriptions, the savings add up. but are all generic drugs truly equal to their brand-name counterparts? the FDA requires excellent data before approving "knock off" drugs, but once a generic is on the market, a different branch of the agency is supposed to monitor for quality. some drugs might be falling through the cracks. we have heard from dozens of readers who have experienced problems with their generic medicines. "i tried to take generic lopressor with terrible results. my blood pressure shot up within two days on the generic, but dropped 20 points after returning to the brand name" another reader complained: "i was taking hytrin to treat an enlarged prostate. when using hytrin, i had no problem urinating, but then the pharmacy substituted terazosin. almost immediately, i had trouble. but the flow is almost nonexistent and does not relieve the pressure on my bladder." "with hytrin, i get up once at night to urinate. with terazonsin, it is every hour throughout the night." some health care professionals are convinced that certain generic medications are less effective. "i am a medical assistant for three orthopedic surgeons who do total joint replacements. one of my main duties is to call in refills for pain medication after surgery. our surgeons specify brand name medicines like vicodin and lortab because some generic substitutes don't relieve patient's pain" the FDA has expressed interest in such experiences. anyone who would like to report problems with their medicine an contact us with details. send e-mail to pharmacy@mindspring.com. we will pass your experience on to the FDA. knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc > i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was > written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." > http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc I would like to know the real source of this information. It could easily be disinformation from drug manufacturers. I'm particularly suspicious about anyone calling generic drugs "knock off" drugs. I've used generics for many years for a variety of ailments and never had a problem, and I would want something stronger than what was reported here before changing. Of course, one exapmple doesn't prove anything, but the same could be said for other anecdotal information. Certainly quality control should be monitored for all drugs, prescription (brand name or generic) or over the counter. We can't assume that manufacturers won't take shortcuts if no one is watching them, but that applies both to brand name and generic drugs. Sometimes both are actually manufactured in the same factories. If the FDA is not doing its job in this regard, something should be done. That might require a different regulatory philosophy and stronger laws. But I think that will require different politics from the electorate. > > i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was > > written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > require a different regulatory philosophy and stronger laws. But I > think that will require different politics from the electorate. I wish they would come up with a generic for Zocor, I could save a lot of money.  SignatureEmail: dalej2@mac.com >>>i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was >>>written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > I wish they would come up with a generic for Zocor, I could save a lot > of money. A brief check with google suggests that the Zocor patent expires this year. (It apparently expired in 2001 but they were granted an extension.) There should be a generic pretty soon, but the drug companies have a variety of mechanisms for delaying generics. I take omeprazole, which is generic Prilosec. The manufacturer first came out with a new drug Nexium that is essentially the same as Prilosec in the way it acts in the body, and they have appeared to have convinced many doctors to prescribe it and many patients to demand it. In addition, they made Prilosec available over the counter, but it is much more expensive to take that way. I get the generic by prescription and, with my drug insurance, it is cheaper that way. Eventually drug chains will produce their own cheaper over the counter versions. In my opinion, the patent law is being abused to limit competition and innovation. The stuation is worse for copyright law, where the copyright holders, usually large corporations, not the originators of the material, seem to be able to keep the copyright essentially forever. > ... > In my opinion, the patent law is being abused to limit competition and innovation. The > stuation is worse for copyright law, where the copyright holders, usually large > corporations, not the originators of the material, seem to be able to keep the copyright > essentially forever. Yes indeed. <OffTopicRant> I believe that the current copyright laws, which are much more long lasting than they were 40 years ago, benefit a small number of copyright holders to the detriment of both authors and readers. One particularly terrible side of it is that there is a huge amount of copyrighted material, the vast bulk of it, that cannot be made available in the public domain, e.g., through the Gutenburg site, but will not be made available by the copyright holders either because the demand doesn't justify the cost of republication and distribution. So it just sits there - not benefiting, readers, writers, or publishers. There is no incentive for the publishers to bring the materials out again because it's expensive, and no incentive for them to release it to the public domain, because they get no money for giving up their rights. How many fine books published from the 1930's through 2000's are now out of print, unavailable, and very likely to remain out of print and unavailable for decades to come? And for those books that are still in copyright and in print, how many are still earning royalties for authors and how many are only earning money for publishers who bought the rights from someone who bought the rights long ago. The patent situation is even worse. Companies exist that produce nothing whatever. Their only business is lawsuits and extortion. They look for rich targets and then search the patent records to see if they can find some patent that might be infringed. They visit the schlemiel who filed the patent, or his heirs, and pay them a small amount for what seems like a worthless patent. Then they sue the rich target company for infringing "their" patent. Witness SCO vs. IBM, the Blackberry lawsuit, and many similar situations. </OffTopicRant> Alan >> ... >> In my opinion, the patent law is being abused to limit competition [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > number of copyright holders to the detriment of both authors > and readers. I believe it is 70 years after the death of the author as well, but don't quote me on that. I will have to check. Dad didn't copyright his book on our ancestors and 3 genealogists purloined a lot of it for their website....with no accreditation to him or his cousin. I barrelled in and threatened them with a lawsuit over copyright, but what made them toe the line was when I told them that Dad had made a rather huge error which I had spent some 3 years hunting down and correcting......& THEY DO NOT GET ONE IOTA OF THIS INFORMATION FROM ME!! So they now credit Dad and his cousin for the Bowness family information......wrong as it is, grin. > The patent situation is even worse. Companies exist that > produce nothing whatever. Their only business is lawsuits [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what seems like a worthless patent. Then they sue the > rich target company for infringing "their" patent. Don't get me going on Blackberry and its inventor, RIM (Research in Motion, Canada)....that damn US company was merely a patent holder as you point out above. Friggin' crooks!! Rant off hereto....but you pushed a button or two, lol. (schlemiel? Irish, eh?) Cheers...Heather > Witness SCO vs. IBM, the Blackberry lawsuit, and many > similar situations. > </OffTopicRant> > > Alan > (schlemiel? Irish, eh?) That's right. By way of Eastern Europe. A "schlemiel" is basically the same as a "shnook". I could explain it better if I were a maven instead of just a patzer. Yiddish has some unique and wonderful words that just don't seem to have English equivalents. Alan >> (schlemiel? Irish, eh?) > > That's right. By way of Eastern Europe. > > A "schlemiel" is basically the same as a "shnook". I could > explain it better if I were a maven instead of just a patzer. I am also hardly an expert, but to me a schlemiel is someone who is incompetent while a schnook is someone who is harmlessly ineffectual. But see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Yiddish_origin for more authoritative opinions. There is also the schlimazel, which means an unlucky person. The old joke is that the distinction is that the schlemiel spills the soup on the schlimazel. > Yiddish has some unique and wonderful words that just > don't seem to have English equivalents. > > Alan >> (schlemiel? Irish, eh?) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yiddish has some unique and wonderful words that just > don't seem to have English equivalents. LOL!! Yes, I know what they all mean, but agree that a lot of them just don't translate into English. My high school was 90% Jewish (Ashkenazi) and I think "schlemiel" was the first word I learned, grin. I remember trying to explain one expression recently and no way could I get the full meaning across. When my failing memory returns, I will tell you which one it was. Heather >>... >>In my opinion, the patent law is being abused to limit competition and innovation. The [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Alan protection of intellectual property is the basis for our scientific dominance. as to the above, why did the infringing co not buy the patent rights in the first place? j. >> The patent situation is even worse. Companies exist that >> produce nothing whatever. Their only business is lawsuits [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as to the above, why did the infringing co not buy the patent rights > in the first place? It's not all that simple, J. One teeny, tiny change and the patent can be no good. There are companies out there that spend 24 hours a day looking for just that sort of thing. I am not sure why RIM & Blackberry were being sued, but I do know that they did have the proper patent. It was just the fact that they were going to lose millions in business that they decided to pay these jerks off......which is all that these jerks wanted. Easy money!! Heather > ... > protection of intellectual property is the basis for our scientific dominance. I'm not sure that's true. However I do agree with the principle of protecting intellectual property. The guy who created the whatever- it-is shouldn't see someone else make all the money off it. But the devil is in the details. Protection of intellectual property is good. Sitting on information for decades without making use of it, and without releasing it for other to make use of, is not good. > as to the above, why did the infringing co not buy the patent rights in the first place? There are several different kinds of things going on here. In some cases you have it exactly right. Some company steals an idea from someone without compensating him. In those cases, the thieves did wrong and should be forced to pay. However there are other cases that are distortions of the fundamental principles involved. Here are some examples: 1. A company exercises due diligence, but fails to turn up the patent that they are later found to have infringed. Had they found the patent in their first search they could have negotiated a price, or they could have come up with a different idea. But they didn't find it and they get socked for huge costs later. They really never copied anything. They came up with the idea independently. But they get burned. 2. The "infringement" is not real, but the company is stuck anyway. I believe this was the SCO / IBM case. SCO claimed that IBM released hundreds of thousands of lines of UNIX code into Linux and sued for 3 billion (yes, that's with a "b") dollars. However, after much pressure, the only two examples of such code that SCO actually published in support of their claim turned out to be bogus. The Linux code was not copied from them. It appears that SCO just decided that a huge company like IBM would rather pay them off with a settlement (for much less than 3G) than pay a huge amount to lawyers to fight them. It turns out they were wrong. SCO, of course, did not write UNIX. They bought it for a song from Novell, who bought it from AT&T. They were not the authors of any of it and paid very little for it. 3. The patent is bogus. Technology has gone way beyond what most patent office clerks can understand and patents are often granted for things that should not be patentable or are not original. But when the sharks go after your company, even though you may be pretty sure that the patent they're wielding is bogus, can you afford the risk of a trial, knowing that if you lose your business is gone? So you settle and pay. 4. The patent was artificial. My son, a young electrical engineer, has five patents to his name. One is for something he thought was original and useful. The other four were things he developed that his company filed at the patent office against his advice, and won the patents. Most big technology companies are now patenting everything in sight, creating patents as fast as they can for ideas that are half-baked and for which there is zero intent to turn them into products. The patent is filed purely because: a. The company _might_ someday use something like it. and b. The company _might_ someday get a chance to sue, or threaten to sue, someone with a similar idea and make a bundle that way. It's like anything else. The rule of law, government regulation, personal injury law, etc., can all be great things if used wisely and well, but there's always a way to twist them into something they were never intended to be and make big profits for sharks and lawyers. Alan >>> ... >>> In my opinion, the patent law is being abused to limit competition [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > protection of intellectual property is the basis for our scientific > dominance. This may be true if you replace "scientific" by "technological", although I doubt it. But sceince depends on open sharing and free use of information. Limitations from patents and copyrights in scientific research would stifle it. Fortunately, until the present, that has not been an issue, but it is now becoming one. In any event, it is not intellectual property rights that are issue, but the abuse of such rights. Originally, patents and copyrights were supposed to be LIMITED in time. That protected the inventor or artist and provided incentives for invention and creation of artistic works while still allowing for free use after that time and for fair use during it. But patents and copyrights are now sought for things that are not really original work, and they are granted by a disfunctional bureacracy. Also, these days the owners of the rights are seldom those who actually created the work. Finally, the law allows endless extensions for trivial reasons. > as to the above, why did the infringing co not buy the patent rights in > the first place? > > j. >> ... >> protection of intellectual property is the basis for our scientific dominance. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > owners of the rights are seldom those who actually created the work. Finally, the law > allows endless extensions for trivial reasons. Exactly. Leonard has said very succintly what I was trying to say in my rambling post. Alan (I thought the "lawyers" were at fault for this?) Seriously, folks, the American economy, including the legal system, is not perfect but continually gets revised and improved. Things aren't as dire and evil as Alan protrays. The main thing we all could do to improve things is to help prevent special interests and lobbysists from having too much influence on legislation - when this happens the benefit to the public is given a back seat and the result is problematic (e.g., over complex and inconsistent laws, requiring, e.g., lawyers to sort out the confusion and uncertainties for their clients). > Companies exist that produce nothing whatever. Their only business is lawsuits and extortion. They look for rich targets and then search the patent records to see if they can find some patent that might be infringed. They visit the schlemiel who filed the patent, or his heirs, and pay them a small amount for what seems like a worthless patent. Then they sue the rich target company for infringing "their" patent. > ... Things aren't as dire and evil as Alan protrays. ... I hope and wish you are right. I fear that I am. > The main thing we all could do to improve things is > to help prevent special interests and lobbysists from having too much > influence on legislation - when this happens the benefit to the public > is given a back seat and the result is problematic (e.g., over complex > and inconsistent laws, requiring, e.g., lawyers to sort out the > confusion and uncertainties for their clients). Unfortunately, the serious issues in patent and copyright law could easily put the electorate to sleep. The only people who follow that sort of thing are the specialists - rich publishing and patent holding companies on one side, and relatively poor libraries, open source software organizations, etc., on the other. Guess which one of those two has the greatest influence on legislation. I'm not arguing against democracy here, but I am trying to wake up the public and let them know that this issue affects them. It is not in the public interest to extend patents and copyrights for long periods of time. Alan >>>i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was >>>written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > I wish they would come up with a generic for Zocor, I could save a lot > of money. here is a cite from europe on simvastatin (Zocor) http://www.essentialdrugs.org/edrug/archive/200306/msg00065.php It is expiring soon. j. >>>i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was >>>written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > I wish they would come up with a generic for Zocor, I could save a lot > of money. My doctor has recently changed my prescription to Vytorin. j. leonard wrote: I would like to know the real source of this information. It could easily be disinformation from drug manufacturers. I'm particularly suspicious about anyone calling generic drugs "knock off" drugs. I've used generics for many years for a variety of ailments and never had a problem, and I would want something stronger than what was reported here before changing. Of course, one exapmple doesn't prove anything, but the same could be said for other anecdotal information. ========= hi leonard - here's the source of the person who wrote the article...... ~ curtis ---------------------------- The People's Pharmacy with Joe and Terry Graedon ABOUT THE GRAEDONS About People's Pharmacy and the Graedons In 1976, when The People's Pharmacy was originally published, it was one of the first books providing drug and health information to consumers. It went on to become a number one best-seller. Since then, Joe and Terry Graedon have written many more books in the People's Pharmacy series. In addition, Joe and Terry write The People's Pharmacy syndicated newspaper column, which is widely distributed in the United States and abroad, and they also co-host an award-winning health talk show that airs weekly on over 500 stations through public radio, the InTouch Radio Reading Service, and the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. The Graedons are frequent guests on television news and information programs to discuss issues relating to drugs, herbs, home remedies, vitamins and related health topics. Appearances include public television, Dateline NBC, "20/20," "Extra," "The Oprah Winfrey Show," "Good Morning America," "CBS Morning News," and "NBC Evening News with Tom Brokaw." The People's Pharmacy got its start in 1972 in a small village in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, where Terry was doing research in medical anthropology. Joe began writing a book to explain medications in an easy-to-understand, friendly style. His master's degree in pharmacology from the University of Michigan and his teaching experience with medical students prepared him for this undertaking. Terry completed her doctoral degree from the University of Michigan and the Graedons moved to Durham, NC. Terry taught at the School of Nursing and the Department of Anthropology at Duke University and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in medical anthropology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Joe has taught at Duke University School of Nursing and the UCSF School of Pharmacy and is an adjunct assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, School of Pharmacy, where he also serves on the Board of Visitors. Joe has served as a consultant to the Federal Trade Commission on nonprescription drug advertising and is a member of the Society for Neuroscience. He received the Medical Self-Care award for The People's Pharmacy. Terry belongs to the American Anthropological Association and the Society of Medical Anthropology. The Graedons were awarded the Silver Award for public affairs from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also received the "Health Headliner of 1998" Award from America Talks Health for "superior contribution to the advancement of medicine and public health education." Joe and Terry were named Ambassadors of the City of Medicine in 1999 and were the 1999 Harriet Cook Carter Distinguished Lecturers for the Duke University School of Nursing. Joe And Terry's Core Values And Beliefs Joe and Terry are guided by these values in all their work: Respect for people's ability to make informed decisions about their health Honesty and integrity in communication and actions Care, compassion and fairness as the guiding principles for all institutions serving people Books by Joe and Terry Graedon The People's Pharmacy #2 (Avon, 1980) Joe Graedon's The New People's Pharmacy #3: Drug Breakthroughs of the '80s (Bantam, 1985) Totally New and Revised The People's Pharmacy (St. Martin's Press, 1985) 50+: The Graedons' People's Pharmacy for Older Adults (Bantam, 1988) Graedons' Best Medicine: From Herbal Remedies to High-Tech Rx Breakthroughs (Bantam, 1991) Aspirin Handbook: A User's Guide to the Breakthrough Drug of the '90's (Bantam, 1993) with Tom Ferguson, M.D. People's Guide To Deadly Drug Interactions (St. Martin's Press, 1995, 1997) The People's Pharmacy: Completely New and Revised (St. Martin's Press, 1996, 1998) Dangerous Drug Interactions (St. Martin's Press, 1999) The People's Pharmacy Guide to Home and Herbal Remedies (St. Martin's Press, 1999) Also by Joe Graedon The People's Pharmacy (St. Martin's Press, 1976) No Deadly Drug (Pocket Books, 1992) a novel by Joe Graedon and Tom Ferguson, M.D. knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc >i found this article in the newspaper and wanted to pass it on. it was >written by joe and teresa graedon of the people's pharmacy. > >~ curtis > >============ Doug, a prostate cancer patient treated with IMRT, says: "I have been using generic cialis (tadalafil) for months, and couldn't be more satisfied. All the bang of the brand name for 1/4 the cost. And no stupid television ads. Hooray for generics." http://www.xlpharmacy.com/online-pharmacy/buy-cialis-online/22.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.