Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / November 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

unexpected consequences. like death

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
outrider@despammed.com - 28 Nov 2004 09:37 GMT
My but they're plain speakin' folk in Wilmington.

Article published Nov 28, 2004
Drug safety up to Congress

http://tinyurl.com/6hnjl

It's time Congress cared as much about us human guinea
pigs as it does the profits of the drug companies.

They've made millions while their customers were
experiencing little side-effects such as high
blood-pressure, strokes, heart attacks and funerals.

Those customers believed their government was
protecting them and their loved ones from medicines
whose dangers only experts could possibly discern. But
their government was in bed with the drug companies,
which offer handsome "campaign contributions" to
compliant politicians.

A decade ago, such politicians took up the industry
cry that the Food and Drug Administration was too slow
to approve new medicines. Newt Gingrich and his allies
denounced it as a sluggish bureaucracy that denied
relief to the suffering.

The FDA got the message. It's been oh-so-kind to drug
outfits like the American company whose overseas
vaccine plant had such serious problems that British
regulators shut it down.

The FDA has also sped up the approval of drugs, some
of which turned out to have unexpected consequences.
For example, death.

Children may have committed suicide because the
anti-depressants they were taking made them worse. One
FDA official has estimated that the pain-killer Vioxx
may have killed thousands of people.

Another warns that dangers might lurk in other drugs,
and he says his agency is incapable of protecting
patients. For one thing, the folks who approve a drug
might be reluctant to believe subsequent evidence that
it's hurting patients.

That's assuming it gets such evidence. The companies
are not always forthcoming with information that might
threaten their profits.

The Journal of the American Medical Association is
urging creation of a separate and independent
drug-safety agency. That's not a new idea. The drug
companies and their Washington allies have killed it
before, and they're trying to kill it again. They say
it isn't needed.
Others might disagree - if they weren't in their
graves.
David Wright - 28 Nov 2004 21:19 GMT
>My but they're plain speakin' folk in Wilmington.

Not really.  See below.

>Article published Nov 28, 2004
>Drug safety up to Congress
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>experiencing little side-effects such as high
>blood-pressure, strokes, heart attacks and funerals.

That's what I mean about "not really".  The "they" in the foregoing
paragraph is quite ambiguous as written.  Does it mean the Congress
(my first interpretation), the human guinea pigs, or the drug
companies?

>Those customers believed their government was
>protecting them and their loved ones from medicines
>whose dangers only experts could possibly discern. But
>their government was in bed with the drug companies,
>which offer handsome "campaign contributions" to
>compliant politicians.

Except that this fails to consider all the drugs that never make it to
market because they either don't work or have too many or too-severe
side-effects.  That never seems to be mentioned.

>A decade ago, such politicians took up the industry
>cry that the Food and Drug Administration was too slow
>to approve new medicines. Newt Gingrich and his allies
>denounced it as a sluggish bureaucracy that denied
>relief to the suffering.

Which in some cases was true -- drugs were being much-delayed to
people who didn't have long to live.

>The FDA has also sped up the approval of drugs, some
>of which turned out to have unexpected consequences.
>For example, death.

And there is no easy way to prevent that except with trials that are
so long and so expensive that virtually no drugs will make it to
market.

Personally, I think a separate safety agency might be a good idea, but
I want to see what the opponents and proponents have to say first.  I
also want to know why such a new agency couldn't also be suborned (if
that's what is happening) just as the FDA is claimed to have been.

Short of having it be staffed by angels, I think it'll be tough.  And
the other big danger here is that we revert to the classic
bureaucratic caution of "this might be harmful, so don't approve it."
It might indeed be harmful, but it might also be beneficial, so where
do you draw the line?  The bureaucrat will always lean towards the
side of "don't approve", because if they approve something that later
turns out to be harmful, they're apt to be crucified.  On the other
hand, failure to approve may also lead to deaths, but that's a lot
harder to prove.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
      "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
          were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)
outrider@despammed.com - 29 Nov 2004 00:36 GMT
There's only one subject in this editorial. The writing moves along at
such a controlled pace and rhythm, no-one but someone looking for a
problem because they disagree with the thesis would have a complaint.

You move very quickly from his thesis to yours. Read the work again.
It's a good lesson in control.

Zee
Michael G - 28 Nov 2004 23:11 GMT
outrider@despammed.com wrote in news:1101634658.090610.15470
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> My but they're plain speakin' folk in Wilmington.
>
> Article published Nov 28, 2004
> Drug safety up to Congress
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6hnjl

another moron.....

DONT CLICK THE LINK I DIDNT!!
 
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.