The Pharmaceutical Industry
I hope they hammer these people. This crap has to stop.
Lilly Sold Drug for Dementia Knowing It Didn’t Help, Files Show
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Eli Lilly & Co. urged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for elderly patients with dementia, an unapproved use for the antipsychotic, even though the drugmaker had evidence the medicine didn’t work for such patients, according to unsealed internal company documents.
In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people, according to documents unsealed in insurer suits against the company for overpayment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aTLcF3zT1PdoWas that when Bush was on the board of directors at Lilly?
(where's that shit stirring smiley?)
hmm - not sure of the validity of
this glatt, but ...
Was that when Bush was on the board of directors at Lilly?
(where's that shit stirring smiley?)
Was he really? According the article it all started in 1998. So I don't know.
Bush I was on the board of directors in the 70s, and Bush II appointed the CEO who ran the company during this time period to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Oh crud, I was hoping there were some decongestants in this thread.
Well at least those old people weren't using untested home remedies. God knows those don't work.
very good Clod, very good.
Well at least those old people weren't using untested home remedies. God knows those don't work.
Indeed. [SIZE=1]([/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]non-blog-link[/SIZE][SIZE=1])[/SIZE]
The lone exception [in herbal remedies]: ginger capsules may help chemotherapy nausea.
As for therapies, acupuncture has been shown to help certain conditions, and yoga, massage, meditation and other relaxation methods may relieve symptoms like pain, anxiety and fatigue.
Yep. Looks like a small percentage of the remedies actually work. Just like pharmaceuticals. I applaud the government for bothering to check.
Wait, I'm confused...the title says "NONE OF THESE REMEDIES WORK" but the article says that some of them do.
Which do I believe? The title can't be wrong, can it?
In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people
The slackers didn't even bother to fabricate their research results? They've got a lot to learn from
Merck and Pfizer...
The thing about Lily is when they first invented their new wonder pill Zyprexa they wanted to get it out there and into the consumer as quickly as possible.
The use of this drug spread like Aspirin and the doctors were getting free samples and all the pens, notepads and clocks they could eat.
For a person with insurance the prescription was mere pennies (o.k. a couple bucks) but the actual cost of a month's worth of this garbage was well over a hundred dollars. See where this is going?
Later studies found that this pill was causing diabetes because of all the sugar cravings and sudden weight gain, and a severe dependency on the drug, even if you didn't really need it.
By that I mean, if you told a doctor in 99' that you were depressed, they'd prescribe this crap. Yes, I've seen it happen. It's disgusting.
So years pass for these patients taking this pill, they don't feel better (in fact they don't "feel" anything at all) and they want to be relieved of Zyprexa's monster grip.
Nope, you have to be weened off of it slowly or it can cause panic attacks, heart problems, mania, you know, like heroin addiction.
If you ask my opinion it should either be pulled or doctors should use a little more discretion with who they're prescribing this shit to.
That's my 2 cents.
The Emperor's New Drugs.
"Yes there is a placebo effect, but is there a powerful antidepressant drug effect?"
The authors expected a substantial placebo effect, but were surprised by the small medication effect that they found. It is suggested that their analysis of FDA data is likely to prove controversial, and although the difference in response between antidepressant medication and inert placebo was statistically significant, in clinical terms it was very small, leading Kirsch et al to ask whether these medications are "the emperor's new drugs."
Yep. Looks like a small percentage of the remedies actually work. Just like pharmaceuticals. I applaud the government for bothering to check.
And now that they've checked, what will happen to the "alternative medicines" that failed the test? I'm guessing that ginger for chemo is not a significant percentage of their business.
When Lily advertises a drug for something that studies have found it has no effect on, it is a scandal, and rightly so. It should be an even bigger scandal for the "alternative medicine" industry, for whom that is the business model. Lily could have put Zyprexa in the herbal remedy aisle with a few testimonials and they wouldn't have needed to do any testing in the first place.
I tried everything for chronic panic and anxiety attacks. Exercise, breath control, herbal remedies, meditation, eating differently. All of this had no effect, placebo or otherwise. Only 15mg of Paxil solved the problem, and has now solved it for 13 years, allowing me to live a normal life.
...allowing me to live a normal life.
Dude, I don't think it's working!
I tried everything for chronic panic and anxiety attacks. Exercise, breath control, herbal remedies, meditation, eating differently. All of this had no effect, placebo or otherwise. Only 15mg of Paxil solved the problem, and has now solved it for 13 years, allowing me to live a normal life.
Sometimes the drugs do what they're intended to do.
It's when they're prescribed for things that they're not intended for that we run into problems.
ex- preparation H is not best used for a headache ;)
sometimes off-label uses are just fine though. A good example is using extra doses of birth control pills as a "morning after" pill back before the morning after pill was available.
"Do not drink alcohol with this medication."
My dad said "that's just a SUGGESTION."
:lol:
And, uh, seriously glatt? That hardly seems safe?
sometimes off-label uses are just fine though. A good example is using extra doses of birth control pills as a "morning after" pill back before the morning after pill was available.
This sounds like an incredibly dumb idea.
Similar to my friend having "lady problems" and instead of going to the doctor she just takes whatever amount of Belladonna cause you know, "it was in a gelcap it's safe"
then her pancreas failed.
OOPS!
This sounds like an incredibly dumb idea.
Actually it is an accepted use of BCP.
By whom and do you have a link?
Actually it is an accepted use of BCP.
Back when I read about it ten or fifteen years ago, it was an accepted use by doctors, but was still off label.
There's a specific formula and dosage to follow, and your doctor can tell you what it is, but it's safe.
A close friend's mom read in a ladies magazine back in the day (way back) that you could do the same thing chemically. She tragically died.
Back when I read about it ten or fifteen years ago, it was an accepted use by doctors, but was still off label.
There's a specific formula and dosage to follow, and your doctor can tell you what it is, but it's safe.
It is still used today.
It is known as Plan B and is still in wide use today.
The morning-after pill — a form of emergency birth control — is used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after she has had unprotected sex. Morning-after pills are generally considered safe, but many women are unaware that they exist.
Here's how the morning-after pill works. Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse. Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.
The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, levonorgestrel (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.
The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, dizziness, menstrual changes and headache. According to the manufacturer, the morning-after pill is more than 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex.
Morning-after pills aren't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), the so-called abortion pill. Emergency contraceptive pills such as Plan B prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.
Plan B is available to women and girls age 17 and older without a prescription at most pharmacies. You must show proof of age to purchase Plan B. For girls age 16 and younger, Plan B is available only with a doctor's prescription.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592Huh, occording to
wikipedia, this off label use of regular birth control pills is approved by the FDA. So it's off label, but it's more than just understood by doctors to be OK, it's actually gov't approved.
"The combined or Yuzpe regimen uses large doses of both estrogen and progestin, taken as two doses at a 12-hour interval. This method is now believed to be less effective and less well-tolerated than the progestin-only method.[4]
It is possible to obtain the same dosage of hormones, and therefore the same effect, by taking several regular combined oral contraceptive pills. For example, 4 Ovral pills are the same as 4 Preven pills.[5][6] The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this off-label use of certain brands of regular combined oral contraceptive pills in 1997.[2][5][7]"
If I recall correctly, any birth control pills will work, you just have to know which pills of the month to take, so you get the ones with the proper hormone levels.
Sounds risky, but what do I know?
If I recall correctly, any birth control pills will work, you just have to know which pills of the month to take, so you get the ones with the proper hormone levels.
No and yes. No not any will work because of the different levels of hormones contained in various BCP, they run the gamet. Yes you have to have the right ones.
Sounds risky, but what do I know?
Not really. You just have one big assed heavy period for a few days. Then you are done.
And that's different than every month for 33 years, how? :lol:
I'm sorry, was that TMI? Feel like I'm talkin' to my girlfriends. :)
Sounds risky, but what do I know?
When I read about it, the instructions were always to call your doctor to get the instructions and to have the prescription for BCP written in case you didn't have any on hand.
The point being that off label uses of prescriptions can sometimes be safe and effective under the guidance of a knowledgeable doctor.
And that's different than every month for 33 years, how? :lol:
I'm sorry, was that TMI? Feel like I'm talkin' to my girlfriends. :)
One word fix:
Hysterectomy.
Speaking of off-label uses, if you put viagra in your shoe, it will make you limp.
When Lily advertises a drug for something that studies have found it has no effect on, it is a scandal, and rightly so. It should be an even bigger scandal for the "alternative medicine" industry, for whom that is the business model.
I don't understand why you think the alternative medicine industry is the bigger scandal. If I buy a box of medicinal tea or some quack colon cleanser it's a few of my dollars and may or may not benefit me... shouldn't really matter to anyone else. If I go to the doctor and get prescribed some daily dosage, habit forming drug that costs my insurance co $500 a month for the rest of my life, raising everyone's premiums, is only a bit more effective than a sugar pill but could have some serious side effects.... well you can guess which scenario I think would be bigger scandal...
I tried everything for chronic panic and anxiety attacks. Exercise, breath control, herbal remedies, meditation, eating differently. All of this had no effect, placebo or otherwise. Only 15mg of Paxil solved the problem, and has now solved it for 13 years, allowing me to live a normal life.
When I put calendula on a burn, it stops hurting.
Meanwhile, at XKCD ...
[ATTACH]23787[/ATTACH]
When I put calendula on a burn, it stops hurting.
Whaddya got for hypertension and high triglycerides?
So back to the BCP thing real quick.
One of the plan B pills is just levonorgestril but in a higher dose. There is a BCP called Levlen that's all one level of hormone (levonorgestril) for the three weeks, then one week of placebos.
If you're on Levlen, you could double up or something (supposedly safely) to use as a plan B type deal if necessary. Theoretically.
If you use another type of BCP you'd have to have your doctor tell you which ones because each week is a different hormone level and blah blah blah.
Then after you do this, you come up short at the end of the month on your pills and it screws up your whole cycle.
So why not just go to the pharmacy and buy plan B which you don't need a prescription for, not mess up the rest of your year's worth of pills OR, better yet, use a condom?
So why not just go to the pharmacy and buy plan B which you don't need a prescription for, not mess up the rest of your year's worth of pills OR, better yet, use a condom?
I suspect Plan B is used more frequently by those who are not already on the pill and because people make mistakes. If accidental pregnancy was as simple as "why not use a condom" there would be no problem.
Wait, so if they're not on the pill how would they be able to double up on their pills to use as a morning after and BOOM! my head exploded.
darn.
So why not just go to the pharmacy and buy plan B which you don't need a prescription for, not mess up the rest of your year's worth of pills OR, better yet, use a condom?
Two reasons: The first is that during the 80, the plan B pills were first being rolled out in various countries, and they were not as available as they are now. So BCPs were the only game in town then for many people. The second reason is that BCPs are cheaper than the plan B pills, and many people already had them on hand.
I agree with your implied point that today it's more convenient to go for the plan B pills. I think you don't even need a prescription when you go to the pharmacy window.
I don't understand why you think the alternative medicine industry is the bigger scandal.
Because the worst practices of the medical industry, the unfortunate examples that make up the bulk of these anti-pharmaceutical news articles, are the standard practice of the alternatives. Advertising and profit are corrupting forces on the industry. But that's all there is in the alternative industry - they are the pharmaceutical industry without the clinical trials.
The fact that some clinical trials are botched is not a good reason to skip them altogether.
Advertising and profit are corrupting forces on the industry. But that's all there is in the alternative industry
Well that and thousands of years of use... of trial and error. And you don't see much advertising... or profit really, when you compare to mainstream big pharma medicine.
The fact that some clinical trials are botched is not a good reason to skip them altogether.
Hey that's fine, make your choices. And mind your own business when it comes to mine ok? Because I might want to try an herbal tea before I get an expensive prescription... or I might try a dab of clove oil before I take a bunch of narcotics etc etc... Placebo effect? Ok fine, I'll take the cheapest/easiest one thanks.
edit: FYI: Botched and fabricated mean two different things.
...or I might try a dab of clove oil before I take a bunch of narcotics...
We can never be friends.
:bawling:
Might, I said, might... I want to keep my options open.
Well that and thousands of years of use... of trial and error.
Which can't seem to be duplicated in a double blind study.
And you don't see much advertising... or profit really, when you compare to mainstream big pharma medicine.
It's pure profit. They have no R&D costs, and minimal manufacturing costs. And some of them get plenty of advertising. Head-On, Airborne, and Enzyte come to mind.
Which can't seem to be duplicated in a double blind study.
What, specifically, are you talking about?
Head-On, Airborne, and Enzyte come to mind
Yeah I don't know anything about these products (although I've had a medical professional who frequents this board recommend Zicam based on experience, I haven't actually tried it).
I had more herbal/traditional remedies in mind when talking about "alternative"... you know, the stuff "modern medicine" comes from... although ineffective and advertised would also describe main-stream over the counter cough medicine.
Might, I said, might... I want to keep my options open.
*wipes eyes*
well, okay then. I mean, you could get the narcotics and just...oh, I don't know, have them around in case someone you knew needed them or something like that.
no biggie. Just, you know,
narcotics.What, specifically, are you talking about?
Anything except the few exceptions noted in the article.
I had more herbal/traditional remedies in mind when talking about "alternative"... you know, the stuff "modern medicine" comes from...
When an herbal remedy is tested and works, it becomes part of modern medicine. If it isn't tested, or is tested and doesn't work, it remains "alternative". If the ginger capsules hold up to further testing, they'll become as much part of modern medicine as aspirin. But all of the remedies that failed testing will remain on the herbal remedy aisle at Whole Foods.
When an herbal remedy is tested and works, it becomes part of modern medicine.
Orly?
I disagree with you HM. I'm sure you're devastated.
When an herbal remedy is tested and works, it becomes part of modern medicine.
If it doesn't require a prescription, what does that mean? People use it? Doctors informally recommend it?
If it doesn't require a prescription, what does that mean? People use it? Doctors informally recommend it?
Yes. Aspirin is an obvious example.
Okay. I use lactobacillus acidophilus as a probiotic. My doctor has recommended it. It has been tested in a variety of studies as a digestive aid. So you're on board with that, then?
According to a quick
Google:
Multiple human trials report benefits of Lactobacillus acidophilus for bacterial vaginosis. Other medicinal uses of Lactobacillus acidophilus are not sufficiently studied to form clear conclusions.
Wikipedia and medicinenet also mention using it to repopulate the gut after antibiotics.
NIH seems to be the source of the Mayo Clinic quote, and has a lot more data about the studies with respect to that and other uses.
I'm on board with the NIH.
And from your initial link, I would assume that you're now on board with the use of ginger to alleviate nausea, right? And of course, any proctologist in the country will tell you to use magnesium citrate to clean out your colon before an examination, and by extension it will treat constipation as well... I could continue to name them, but my point is you already use and "believe in" a huge number of "natural remedies." The only problem is you hear the phrase "natural remedies" and you assume that must mean it hasn't been tested.
What's more, untested does not equal disproven. It is all well and good to hold ourselves to a scientific ideal of broad-scale, blind testing for the effectiveness of every single remedy everyone has ever thought of. But the reality is neither the medical or the pharmaceutical companies can meet that ideal, the vast majority of the time. Economic realities taint everything.
Not to tail post here, but has the term "natural remedies" really been defined here?
It can mean many different things. Just saying.
That's the point. Some people hear those words and can't help but run screaming for the hills, desperate to wash off the dirty hippie cooties.
...
I could continue to name them, but my point is you already use and "believe in" a huge number of "natural remedies."
...
What's more, untested does not equal disproven.
I'm all for the ones that have been tested and proven. Untested doesn't mean disproven, but it does mean unproven. And if you scroll back, you'll find that my initial post on this thread was in response to "untested home remedies".
Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't regulate them, so there are still some problems. There is no differentiation on the shelves between the ones that are tested and proven, the ones that are untested, and the ones that have been tested and proven useless. So unless you've got the NIH site up on your smartphone as you go down that aisle, you can't tell.
It is all well and good to hold ourselves to a scientific ideal of broad-scale, blind testing for the effectiveness of every single remedy everyone has ever thought of. But the reality is neither the medical or the pharmaceutical companies can meet that ideal, the vast majority of the time. Economic realities taint everything.
The economic reality is that the herbal supplement industry has deliberately avoided being treated as food or drug, despite being sold as something for people to ingest, in order to avoid the requirement that their products be tested. Happily, in 2007 the FDA was given the authority to check that the products at least contain the ingredients on the label. So that's a plus. I'm not sure how homeopathy fits into that, though, as they don't contain any of the ingredient.
Not to tail post here, but has the term "natural remedies" really been defined here?
It can mean many different things. Just saying.
That's the point.
It's my point too. There's no differentiation on the "natural remedies" shelves between tested and untested remedies, or even between effective and ineffective tested products.
The normal state of the alternative medicine industry is equivalent to when the FDA system fails.
The normal state of the alternative medicine industry is equivalent to when the FDA system fails.
It's also a question of severity. When an herbal supplement fails, the result is: nothing. When a drug fails, we discover it because people are suffering severe side effects and even death. Oh, and sometimes they suffer those when the drug is working too.
There is no differentiation on the shelves between the ones that are tested and proven, the ones that are untested, and the ones that have been tested and proven useless.
There is at least one differentiation: untested substances must put a disclaimer that the FDA has not tested it and it is "not intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent any disease."
Well. That's not entirely the case. There are some herbal remedies which can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision. I can't remember the name of it now, but I know there's one that can cause quite serious liver and kidney problems, if they used where an underlying problem already exists (I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).
I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."
(I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).
...because people with a diagnosed existing condition such as heart disease or liver disease definitely wouldn't smoke or drink. Would they? :D
It's also a question of severity. When an herbal supplement fails, the result is: nothing.
How do you know? That hasn't been tested either. "Natural" doesn't mean "harmless". The only way to be sure something has no side effects is if it has no effects.
There is at least one differentiation: untested substances must put a disclaimer that the FDA has not tested it and it is "not intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent any disease."
"Wink wink, nudge nudge. But go ahead and use it for your disease anyway."
I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."
I won't speak for Dana, but she did say "can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision", not "must be taken under medical supervision", which have different meanings, especially if we take "must" to mean by law.
I'm not sure how much authority the FDA has over dietary supplement safety. All I've seen is that they can verify that they actually contain the listed ingredients.
From
here:
In October 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was signed into law by President Clinton. Before this time, dietary supplements were subject to the same regulatory requirements as were other foods. This new law, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, created a new regulatory framework for the safety and labeling of dietary supplements.
...in the case of a new dietary ingredient... pre-market review for safety data and other information is required by law
A "new dietary ingredient" is one that meets the above definition for a "dietary ingredient" and was not sold in the U.S. in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994.
Because dietary supplements are under the "umbrella" of foods, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) is responsible for the agency's oversight of these products. FDA's efforts to monitor the marketplace for potential illegal products (that is, products that may be unsafe or make false or misleading claims) include obtaining information from inspections of dietary supplement manufacturers and distributors, the Internet, consumer and trade complaints, occaisional laboratory analyses of selected products, and adverse events associated with the use of supplements that are reported to the agency.
If you think you have suffered a serious harmful effect or illness from a product FDA regulates, including dietary supplements, the first thing you should do is contact or see your healthcare provider immediately. Then, you and your health care provider are encouraged to report this problem to FDA.
And now that they've checked, what will happen to the "alternative medicines" that failed the test? I'm guessing that ginger for chemo is not a significant percentage of their business.
When Lily advertises a drug for something that studies have found it has no effect on, it is a scandal, and rightly so. It should be an even bigger scandal for the "alternative medicine" industry, for whom that is the business model. Lily could have put Zyprexa in the herbal remedy aisle with a few testimonials and they wouldn't have needed to do any testing in the first place.
Actually a lot of alternative remedies work great. Ginger DOES help nausea. I don't know if it works for chemo, but in general, it works. Pot does work for chemo though. It's really stupid that it's illegal.
ex- preparation H is not best used for a headache ;)
But apparently it works great on puffy eyes. At least that's what models say. :D
Because the worst practices of the medical industry, the unfortunate examples that make up the bulk of these anti-pharmaceutical news articles, are the standard practice of the alternatives. Advertising and profit are corrupting forces on the industry. But that's all there is in the alternative industry - they are the pharmaceutical industry without the clinical trials.
The fact that some clinical trials are botched is not a good reason to skip them altogether.
Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicine have been tested and proved for over 5000 years.
Well. That's not entirely the case. There are some herbal remedies which can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision. I can't remember the name of it now, but I know there's one that can cause quite serious liver and kidney problems, if they used where an underlying problem already exists (I think this is mainly a problem with undiagnosed existing conditions).
Are you talking about ephedra, maybe? I know a few people died from it when they didn't follow directions. Like, one guy took 20-something pills within a 24 hour period, and you aren't supposed to exceed 6 or 8 in a 24 hour period. Another guy took a bunch and then went to football (or maybe it was baseball) practice in the hot sun and died.
I think sometimes people do stupid shit, and they pay the price. Should a natural plant substance be banned because some people are idiots? I think not. But there should be a severe warning on the label.
Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicine have been tested and proved for over 5000 years.
Yes. And Chinese medicine offered for the relief of eczema can have a negative impact on kidneys. Also....define proved? The jury is still very much out on acupuncture...and really, I think the less said about ground up tiger penis and rhino horn the better.
I think sometimes people do stupid shit, and they pay the price. Should a natural plant substance be banned because some people are idiots? I think not. But there should be a severe warning on the label.
There are othr facors though. I think it might have been St John's wort. A natural herbal remedy which can have devastating effects on undiagnosed kidney problems.
Yes, there are some flaws, especially the killing of endangered animals to provide ground up penis or horns, but a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well. I have been using different forms of alternative medicines for years, and so have many people I know. No one I know has ever had a bad effect. I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying. I have had acupuncture before, and it worked for me. I wish I could still afford it. it would be a hell of a lot better than having to take pain meds all the time. Ugh. The pain meds work well, but I know they are probably causing damage to my liver and my brain.
Acupuncture didnt do a damn thing for me. Also, a lot of the success of alternative therapies seems difficult to replicate in scientific studies. How much of it is the medicine helping, and how much is people thinking themselves well because they believe the medicine will help?
a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well.
Cite the studies please, there are plenty that disagree with your opinion.
Well of course some work. Aspirin is a herbal remedy whch has been tested and now reproduced in labs. Ginger does help nausea, and was given to astronauts to assist with weightlessness sickness.
But 'herbal stuff' is a pretty wide brief. Thats like saying yeah but a lot of plants are really edible. It doesnt stop some of them being poisonous.
Chinese and Ayurvedic Medicine have been tested and proved for over 5000 years.
Tested how? Do you mean used?
Are you talking about ephedra, maybe?
Or, perhaps Ayurvedic. I hadn't heard of it before, but the first thing that pops out when googling it is its frequent
toxic heavy metal content.
I think that accupuncture or something like that would be better than the kind of back surgeries people have done, if only in that it doesn't ƒuck you up WORSE than before.
Cite the studies please, there are plenty that disagree with your opinion.
I am talking about MY OWN EXPERIENCE and the EXPERIENCES of people I KNOW. I am not talking about studies.
You know, the FDA came out and said weed had no medicinal benefits as well, but everyone knows that is a lie.
Why do you trust big pharma so much? I trust my own experiences. I know they don't all work, and some work for some people and not others,
just like real medications. I will always try herbs and alternative things before I try medication.
Dana, I used to take a tincture that had St John's Wort in it, along with a few other ingredients, and it worked GREAT for me, better than any antidepressant I had ever taken. And there were no side effects. I'm not saying everyone should take it, but it certainly worked for me. I think pharmaceuticals have a much higher chance of doing harm than most herbals or homeopathics.
Tested how? Do you mean used?
Or, perhaps Ayurvedic. I hadn't heard of it before, but the first thing that pops out when googling it is its frequent toxic heavy metal content.
I've never heard of Ayurvedic medicine having heavy metal consequences, but here is a link to the NIH page on Ayurvedic Medicine.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/
and here is a link to the NIH page on Chinese Medicine.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/chinesemed.htm#An NCCAM-funded study published in 2004 found that of 70 Ayurvedic remedies purchased over-the-counter (all manufactured in South Asia), 14 contained lead, mercury, and/or arsenic at levels that could be harmful. Also in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 12 cases of lead poisoning occurring over a recent 3-year period were linked to the use of Ayurvedic medications.
That quote is from your first link, sugarpop.
OK. I only said I had never heard of it. That's why I posted the link I found. I have never personally used Ayurvedic, except teas. I have used some Chinese herbs though, and they worked quite well. I imagine anything coming from Asia might be suspect, because they don't have the same regulations. If they contained heavy metals, it must be from all the pollution over there, don't you think? So I guess some Chinese herbs might also be suspect. I have never had a problem personally.
sugarpop! I've been wondering where you were!
Nice to see you back. :)
a lot of the herbal stuff really works, and works well. I have been using different forms of alternative medicines for years, and so have many people I know. No one I know has ever had a bad effect.
Yeah, like those zinc nasal sprays to fight a new cold.
Oh, wait.Yeah....*tic* I have been *tic* using herbal remedies fo- *tic*-r years now...and *ungh* they ne - *fuck fuck fuck* -ver did me any *tic* harm!
(sorry Sug :p just kiddin')
On the other hand, that's a perfect example of the FDA stepping in to pull something herbal off the shelves after it had a negative effect. It's not a completely unregulated free-for-all over there in the vitamin aisle.
We have something of the opposite problem over here. There are a number of vitamin supplements (again can't recall exactly which, and cannot be arsed googling :P) which are about to be heavily regulated to the point that effective quantities won't be available over the counter at healthfood stores. One of them is particularly helpful for menopausal women and there's been a big campaign to save the supplements. They've been available for years, but new EU rules are starting to impact. Under British law they were absolutely fine and actually quite effectively regulated ( i think).
If they contained heavy metals, it must be from all the pollution over there, don't you think?
Sometimes. Sometimes it's the intended ingredient.
mercury was used for years as a medicine in the west. Until it became clear that it wasn't so much helping as poisoning the patents :P
To be fair, it did technically treat syphilis. The mercury killed you slower than the syphilis, that's all.
But there were also lots of folks drinking straight mercury for general health, which was of course not a wise plan. :)
mercury was used for years as a medicine in the west. Until it became clear that it wasn't so much helping as poisoning the patents :P
I'm a fan of that "until".
To be fair, it did technically treat syphilis. The mercury killed you slower than the syphilis, that's all.
But there were also lots of folks drinking straight mercury for general health, which was of course not a wise plan. :)
That's a common issue with alternative medicine. Something may work in particular circumstances, and it becomes a cureall. Chiropracty may help certain back pain, and people use it for arthritis.
And leeches can be good to prevent clotting, but they're useless at best for... almost everything they used to be used for.
I reckon that ole practice of drillin into yer head to relieve a headachey wern't not none too wise neever, but hey its natural riggghhhttt.
And leeches can be good to prevent clotting, but they're useless at best for... almost everything they used to be used for.
Nonsense: just pop a couple under your tongue and allow them to dissolve slowly...
(prizes for anyone who gets that comedy reference).
I reckon that ole practice of drillin into yer head to relieve a headachey wern't not none too wise neever, but hey its natural riggghhhttt.
Once again,
trepanning does have a legitimate medical use. There was a news article just recently about how it saved a little girl's life when she had pressure building up in her skull from a brain hemmorhage after getting hit in the head with a baseball in her backyard. Her only symptom was a severe headache. (It was news because the parents only bothered to take her to the ER after they saw a news program about Natasha Richardson. Had they let the girl just go to bed with some Tylenol, she would have died.)
You have to have a certain baseline of respect for the empirical evidence that any group of people collects, even if no one knows or remembers the
why behind it. There was, for example, a tribe in Africa which became quite worshipped by the locals for awhile, because they had discovered a magical shamanistic cure for disease. Anthropologists visited, and watched the entire ritual, which involved hours of dancing, chanting, taking certain sacred fruits from special trees, praying over them, hoisting the fruit in a basket over a sacred river, spending another full week or two dancing, singing, etc. etc. etc... then the gods had "blessed" the sacred fruit, the sick person ate it, and they got better. Well of course what the anthropologists realized was the fruit got moldy while it sat out there for two weeks, and the tribe was growing freaking penecillin right there in the basket. Their belief in why it worked was misguided, but the fact remained that this tribe
had discovered a cure for these sick people after all. They were not lying, they were not imagining the results. They could have saved a lot of time and energy if they had used the scientific method to further pinpoint the results they were seeing, but they were nonetheless producing results.
Iwas joking about them thar olden days ya cloddy
I can't find any evidence on the internets of an African tribe accidentally discovering penicillin.
No....but there have been plenty of societies who have accidentally discovered aspirin.
I can't find any evidence on the internets of an African tribe accidentally discovering penicillin.
:notworthy Man, I cannot even imagine how to look for such a thing nor how long I would last searching for it.
I can't find any evidence on the internets of an African tribe accidentally discovering penicillin.
Don't know what to tell you. In the old days, shit was in books, and this was in a book on my dad's shelf that I read when I was about 17. I'll ask him if he remembers which one I'm talking about. If everything were available online, Dana would never have to go to the University library.
The internet gives us quick access to 1% of the information in the world. Library sciences are still needed for the remaining 99%.
Don't know what to tell you. In the old days, shit was in books, and this was in a book on my dad's shelf that I read when I was about 17. I'll ask him if he remembers which one I'm talking about. If everything were available online, Dana would never have to go to the University library.
And...I wouldn't have had to spend $40 (incl postage) for a book about 18th C Infantry ...which I just did.
god, I hate the 18th C fucking infantry! I really hate them and I don't hate anyone!
(Ok. that was for attention. I admit that)
hahahahahah. That made me laugh so hard I startled Pilau.
FDA: Indian drug co lied about test results for generic drugs. (also
CNN)
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Inc., the firm which has helped propel India into a major player in the global pharmaceutical market, did not properly test the shelf-life of about 25 generic drugs then lied about how they conducted the tests and falsified results to cover up testing irregularities, the FDA said.
FDA officials said no harm to patients who took the dozens of Ranbaxy drugs has been detected, there is no evidence that the drugs are dangerous, and no recall of the drugs is necessary. Officials said patients prescribed Ranbaxy drugs should continue to take their medications. All 25 generic drugs made at the Ranbaxy plant now under investigation likely made their way into the U.S., the FDA said.
"Nobody" spots problems with study published in JAMA
Jonathan Leo, a professor of neuro-anatomy at tiny Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tenn., posted a letter on the Web site of the British Medical Journal this month criticizing a study that appeared in JAMA last spring. The study concerned the use of the anti-depressant Lexapro in stroke patients. In addition to identifying what he said was an important omission in the paper — that behavioral therapy worked just as well as the drug when compared head to head in the study — Leo also pointed out that the lead author had a financial relationship with Forest Laboratories, the maker of Lexapro, that was not disclosed in the study.
Did Astra Zeneca's research chief bias science with Sex-for-Studies/Drugs scandal?
Dr. Wayne MacFadden, AZ’s former US medical director for Seroquel and director clincial research in CNS had affairs with a clinical researcher who authored publications favorable to Seroquel, and a medical marketer who promoted Seroquel through medical publications and other means.
...
(new link)
Former AstraZeneca U.S. medical director for Seroquel Wayne MacFadden confessed his multiple sexual affairs, and his offer of drugs to one of the women he was sleeping with, to lawyers in December 2007.
The confessions include descriptions of sex in hotel rooms paid for by AZ, illicit distribution of Vicodin, and a kinky relationship in which one of his colleagues asked to be “punished” for looking at a study that had negative results for Seroquel.
Depressed Doc fabricated (not botched) research
The GMC’s professional conduct committee found that none of the 38 women in the trial had taken a blood test described in the abstract.
sugarpop! I've been wondering where you were!
Nice to see you back. :)
Thanks! It's good to be back. :D
We have something of the opposite problem over here. There are a number of vitamin supplements (again can't recall exactly which, and cannot be arsed googling :P) which are about to be heavily regulated to the point that effective quantities won't be available over the counter at healthfood stores. One of them is particularly helpful for menopausal women and there's been a big campaign to save the supplements. They've been available for years, but new EU rules are starting to impact. Under British law they were absolutely fine and actually quite effectively regulated ( i think).
They tried to do that here too, but fortunately, there is a champion in Congress who uses vitamins and supplements and believes in them. He has fought hard against having them be like drugs, where you can't get them over the counter.
If something is dangerous, it obviously shouldn't be sold over the counter. But most of that stuff is relatively safe, if used as directed. I guess they should test it and make sure it doesn't have heavy metals in it though. As I said, that's the first I heard of that.
I can't find any evidence on the internets of an African tribe accidentally discovering penicillin.
Memory returns a 93% match.
And adds that the fruit had to have been chewed by a cross-eyed child.
I think the source was a book by Lyall Watson; either
Supernature or
Lifetide.
I read these boooks ages ago, they teeter between cutting edge science - with all the correct references etc - and some questionable extrapolation.
It was where I first learned about the grex, though. Amazing little thing. or 10,000 things, I'm still not sure.
Natural remedies that work, and I use:
Cranberry extract (anything, but concentrate is best for 'problem times')
Yogurt or Acidophelius or Lactobacillius (when you're on antibiotics)
Green Tea (more benefits being discovered frequently)
Tea Tree Oil (I use for acne, but good for fungus ect)
Chamomile (calming or soothing)
Honey (sore throat, other things i don't use it for so I don't know)
Peppermint (see honey)
The list goes on and on. These are just a few I use fairly frequently, which none of my doctors has ever suggested TO me. I have asked my doctor about using them, and I have yet to hear them say they don't work or are a bad idea. The cranberry btw, saved my life when I got a UTI and could not get to the doc until the next day.
HM- your article barely pointed out any specific natural remedies that they tested. Although not all natural remedies work, a great deal do. A great deal that have not made it through FDA approval, neither do doctors tell you about them. Why? Because the real money is in big pharm. They get samples and other incentives to push pills.
Ex: why were anti-depressants pressed on me for 2 yrs in my teens? I was overweight, if the doc had asked it would have been clear I didn't exercise and I ate poorly. Instead of giving me the natural remedy, or even SUGGESTING it along with the pills. What did they do (2 dif docs)? They put me on pills and tried to keep me on them. Starting at the age of 13 i believe. That is wrong.
Oh, and "diet and exercise" is a natural remedy. [COLOR="White"]Its not in the list because I don't use it.[/COLOR]
I think the point isn't that there aren't any good herbal remedies; but rather, there are also many that aren't efficacious and whose effects cannot be replicated in empirical studies.
Tea Tree is a fine substance. I use it a lot. Green tea is proven to be high in anti-oxidants and the effects of anti-oxidants can and have been proved in medical studies (they form the basis of the only currently effective treatment of age related macular degeneration - lutin).
Different doctors have different attitudes to this stuff. My GP is quite happy to suggest to me natural remedies that might help alongside prescription medications. But she's also good for telling me which ones are proven and tested and which ones are just taking my money.
The cranberry extract probably would have been a fine remedy for my UTI, but I had to go to the doc to get it diagnosed, so she gave me antibiotics just to really kill it. At that point though it was my 3rd or 4th month in a row that I had to take antibiotics...I prob shoulda turned 'em down. I think part of the problem with herbal remedies used by the general population is that they are also "self-diagnosing" and don't have a professional opinion as to what is their issue is. Of course, the pro's don't always do that good of a job either which I know first hand.
About the studies, I just don't trust that all or even most natural remedies have been effectively tested. Especially in this country where big pharm runs the show. I don't want big pharm to take over that aspect of medicine whatsoever, it would drive up the costs and then some might require a prescription. Or they would fuck up the medicine in order to 'imrove' it. Remember the coca plant? Now used to make cocaine...yeah cocaine was the 'improvement' of the effects of the coca plant.
HP can say there is more money in herbal remedies all he wants, truth is, big pharm gets the money for research, patents their meds, and pushes it to the public through doctors who are under/mis-informed. Our FDA is mostly in their pocket, and they have lobbyist to keep the effective natural remedies from succeeding.
Yes there are alot of scam 'natural remedies' that is part of the issue with it. There are really good ones as well that no one seems to know about, or possible we haven't ran an effective trial. Just like jinx was posting about fraud trials for big pharm meds, don't you think the same is possible for trials of natural remedies?
[COLOR="White"]Yes, they are out to get me... [/COLOR]
Oh word up on the cranberry for UTIs. I had chronic recurring infections that got me referred all the way up to a urologist, and the only thing that stopped them was when I began taking daily cranberry concentrate pills (recommended by the urologist.)
I think part of the problem with herbal remedies used by the general population is that they are also "self-diagnosing" and don't have a professional opinion as to what is their issue is.
Nailed it.
Remember the coca plant? Now used to make cocaine...yeah cocaine was the 'improvement' of the effects of the coca plant.
So...not all bad then :P
[eta]
I don't have complete trust in the Pharm companies either. But...speaking as someone whose family was fleeced for £££££s during my childhood follwing various homecure blind alleys (homeopathy, healthfood diets, allergy regimes, even fucking faith healers) I can say that I don't much trust them either. There are natural remedies which are effective. Of ocurse there are, else we'd never have developed modern medicine. But sometimes an effective natural remedy isn;t as effective as the equivalent prescribed drug. And of course vice versa.
Pharm companies may not be the best people to trust ... but y'know there are a lot of universities researching this stuff as well. If it's effective and can be proved empirically then I am happy. But I've been stung by both...and of the two I'd say I have had waay more success with prescribed medicines.
Just a few herbs and supplements I have used that have worked for me:
Valarian, Scullcap, Mugwort help me sleep, as does melatonin.
Chamomile and Kava Kava calm the nerves. Kava Kava should not be taken all the time though, because it can be dangerous if taken over long periods of time. Rescue Remedy (Bach flowers) works too.
St John's Wort helps with depression.
Goldenseal and Echinacea help colds and flu go away (or help you to not get sick) when taken at the first signs of illness. Should not be taken long term.
Ginko, Ginsing and DMAE help with memory and brain function.
Ginsing also helps with energy. So do B vitamins.
NAC, Malic Acid, Magnesium help with pain and sleep in people with fibromyalgia.
Black Cohash and Dong Quai help with perimenopause and menopause symptoms.
Probiotics help keep your gut healthy and keep you regular.
These are just few, that I can think of off the top of my head.
Oh word up on the cranberry for UTIs. I had chronic recurring infections that got me referred all the way up to a urologist, and the only thing that stopped them was when I began taking daily cranberry concentrate pills (recommended by the urologist.)
Ditto. I swear by these. And drinking ocean spray doesn't come close to helping, BTW.
Ocean Spray is just sugar water. The purest, 100% juice they make is a juice "blend" i.e. not 100% cranberry juice. Whole foods has some actual, real cranberry juice. It works by not letting the bacteria or whatever bind to the lining of your tinkle tank.
I've been treating my body likes it's 30. Not so much what I am doing to it than what I am depriving it of so I chose a good multivitamin/mineral. I can already tell the difference in my hair of all places. I hope the rest of my body is just as happy.
In the past I've used goldenseal and red clover and I think they need to be administered by a natropathic doctor. My experience is the goldenseal can mask but not cure a serious problem. I am not sure if overuse of the redclover burn't out my thyroid or it was going anyway.I try not to dwell on it but it did work for menopause symptom of hot flashes.
That said I still think natural cures are wonderful. I have used and still use licorice tea for respirtory health. Don't use it if you have high blood pressure though. I use a bunch of other teas too when I need them but I was so impressed with the way the licorice healed me even more so than the inhailers which gave be the worst side effects ever. I don't use but one of two and then very very rarely only in a have to situation. Oh and Ecuapyptus oil is yummy good too.( for putting on your chest or burner )
Ocean Spray is just sugar water. The purest, 100% juice they make is a juice "blend" i.e. not 100% cranberry juice. Whole foods has some actual, real cranberry juice. It works by not letting the bacteria or whatever bind to the lining of your tinkle tank.
Oh, I know. Cranberry juice tastes bad, no matter if it is fake kind or real kind. The real kind is even worse than the fake, to me, so I take the concentrated pills.
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in sparkling mineral water.
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in sparkling mineral water.
Me, too. With lime. Yummers.
I used to get the real stuff and put shots of it in vodka.
FTFMe
Hmm...anyone know if oatmeal bath will help with chigger bites? I know it does for poison ivy and other rashes.
Try a Cocoa Puff bath. If it doesn't stop the itchies, you can still enjoy it.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=2]“to allow such an article (vit B6) to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=2]According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=2]FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=2]For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.
In the case of pyridoxamine (B6), the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
(
link)
Please note that nowhere in the FDA’s response letter is anything said about safety concerns. In fact, the FDA’s letter specifically says that “to allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.” Fair to the pharmaceutical companies? What about fairness to consumers, some of whom rely on affordable pyridozxamine supplements to provide the levels of vitamin B-6 required for their survival? Is it fair to force those consumers to pay for expensive prescription drugs and doctors’ visits to supply their B-6 needs when they could get the exact same thing for a fraction of the cost in the form of a supplement? Isn’t this why our health care system is so ineffective?
Good question.
Thread drift. I started eating dried cherry's each day for gout. Works for me, so far
HA! A lot of the costs of bringing a new drug to market are paid for by tax dollars, NOT pharmaceutical cos. The NIH sponsors most of the research in this country. So how it unfair to a pharmaceutical company? Assholes.
HA! A lot of the costs of bringing a new drug to market are paid for by tax dollars, NOT pharmaceutical cos. The NIH sponsors most of the research in this country. So how it unfair to a pharmaceutical company? Assholes.
[cough]Bullshit[/cough]
[cough]Bullshit[/cough]
I posted information about this a while ago Merc. Search the site. The NIH does fund most of the research done by pharma cos in this country. AND pharma cos DO include
advertising costs in the R&D category, which is fraud.
Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content.
Documents tendered to a Federal Court class action reveal staff at publishing company Elsevier, which produces The Lancet, emailed pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co about its "preferred content selection" for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.
The publisher also admits the journal is a "single sponsored publication" where most of the content is chosen by Merck with some "input from Elsevier".
The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the phoney journal without telling them they had done so. (Holy shit!)
Since these revelations, Elsevier has expressed embarrassment over its role and admitted it failed to meet its own "high standards for disclosure".
Yea, that whole Vioxx story was the coupe de grace for exposing the BS that goes on.
OK, so here it is,
yet again...
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2001/july/new_report_debunks_d.php
New Report Debunks Drug Industry Claims About the Cost of New Drug Research and Development
Second Report Documents Industry's Intense Lobby and Political Contribution Campaign to Keep Prices and Profits High
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The pharmaceutical industry spends about one-fifth of what it says it spends on the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, destroying the chief argument it uses against making prescription drugs affordable to middle and low-income seniors, a Public Citizen investigation has found.
The findings are contained in a Public Citizen report, Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry's R&D Scare Card.
The report reveals how major U.S. drug companies and their Washington lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have carried out a misleading campaign to scare policymakers and the public. PhRMA's central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund "risky" and innovative research and development to discover new drugs. In fact, taxpayers are footing a significant portion of the R&D bill, which is much lower than the companies claim.
"This R&D scare card is built on myths and falsehoods that are maintained by the drug industry to block Medicare drug coverage and measures that would rein in skyrocketing drug costs," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
Public Citizen based the study on an extensive review of government and industry data and a report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Among the report's key findings:
¤ The actual after-tax cash outlay - what drug companies really spend on R&D for each new drug (including failures) - is approximately $110 million (in year 2000 dollars.) This is in marked contrast with the $500 million figure PhRMA frequently touts.
¤ The NIH document shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to the development of top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists conducted at least 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the five top-selling drugs in 1995.
¤ Public Citizen found that, at most, about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the past two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic advances. Most new drugs were "me-too" or copycat drugs that have little or no therapeutic gain over existing drugs, undercutting the industry's claim that R&D expenses are used to discover new treatments for serious and life-threatening illnesses...
There's more, click on the link...
Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for illegal marketing in off-label drug case
In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.
Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug.
Prescribing the prescribed drugs?
But there is concern in the US that drug companies have been influencing psychiatrists over what anti-psychotic drugs to prescribe.
Whitaker pointed to academic studies in Vermont and Illinois as evidence that too many schizophrenia patients are kept on medication for too long.
In the Vermont case, patients discharged in the 1950s and 1960s were studied 30 years on.
Dr Courtenay Harding determined that one-third had completely recovered and all of those ex-patients had stopped taking anti-psychotic drugs.
"You need a paradigm of care which recognises that some percentage of patients would do better off medication and that should be built into the system," Whitaker concluded.
Suggesting the journalist was "cherry-picking" academic studies, Meltzer warned against making generalisations based on the Harding study "because there was no evidence that these people needed medication to begin with".
• In July of last year, Senator Charles Grassley demanded clarity over the finances of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
• The US Department of Health and Human Services is investigating payments to the former head of Emory University's psychiatry department, Charles Nemeroff
• Harvard University is conducting an internal investigation into psychiatry professor Joseph Biederman, who is accused of failing to disclose payments from drug companies in full
Robert Whitaker suggests the American public is "losing faith in psychiatry as an honest profession".
The problems in the Psych profession and industry are probably the best examples of where problems exist with big Pharm and medicine. Good post.
What happens when Harvard Medical School issues new conflict-of-interest guidelines restricting its doctors from taking pharmaceutical company payoffs?
Doctors start quitting.
Yeah, but according to that article, not all of them are quitting over this and the ones who do may end up losing the cachet that got them the speaking jobs.
Mary Anne Rhyne, US director of media relations for Glaxo, said DuBuske is a national speaker for the company, earning about $2,500 per talk. The company picks the topic and content of the talks in the speakers bureau program, she said.
Rhyne said she is not sure whether DuBuske will be as much in demand as a speaker without the prestigious Brigham and Harvard titles.
“A lot of things would go into a decision about that,’’ she said. “Most of all, we’re looking for people who are well respected.’’
One can hope, but I don't buy it--by definition they can no longer get a speaker with the Harvard title, so they will have to settle for someone without it, regardless.
Yes, but then, without a prestigious title, the speaker might not be much of a draw. Hopefully.
They can still say, Dr DuBuske, Brigham doctor and Harvard professor for more than two decades. :eyebrow:
Senate report links diabetes drug Avandia to heart attacks
The diabetes drug Avandia is linked with tens of thousands of heart attacks, and drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline knew of the risks for years but worked to keep them from the public, according to a Senate committee report released Saturday.
The 334-page report by the Senate Finance Committee also criticized the Food and Drug Administration, saying that the federal agency that regulates food, tobacco and medications overlooked or overrode safety concerns found by its staff.
The Senate report was developed over the past two years by committee investigators who reviewed more than 250,000 pages of documents provided by GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and several research institutes. Committee investigators also conducted numerous interviews and phone calls with GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and anonymous whistleblowers.
According to the Senate report:
• FDA scientists estimated in July 2007 that Avandia was associated with approximately 83,000 heart attacks since the drug came to market.
"Had GSK considered Avandia's potential increased cardiovascular risk more seriously when the issue was first raised in 1999 ... some of these heart attacks may have been avoided," the report states.
• GlaxoSmithKline undertook attempts to undermine information critical of Avandia.
They can still say, Dr DuBuske, Brigham doctor and Harvard professor for more than two decades. :eyebrow:
Or something like: Director of the CDC from 2002-2009.
Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck VaccinesFDA does not have something equivalent to the NTSB or NTHSA to perform technical analysis. As has been proven repeatedly, FDA discovered threats to human life even get diminishes, quashed, or downplayed due to FDA politics and their association with big Pharma.
Not that a separate investigation unit by itself would fix the problem. The NTSB has a 30 year criticism of the FAA for its 'dead body' attitude. FAA will not fix things until someone dies. Even Fox News is now reporting how corrupt the FAA oversight has been.
We also have a separate agency to analyze vehicles failures and deaths. Not that it stopped 37 Toyota deaths. But it has eliminated many such failures by reporting the public - not to some auto industry oversight board.
FDA desperately needs its entire investigation board be spun off and separate from the FDA management. Big pharma has massive profits, gets much if not most of it basic research paid for by government, and has a history of keeping prices high by consolidating and by getting government protection. The most recent and perfect exact is George Jr's Medicaid prescription law that protected a 40% higher profit for drugs in America.
FDA needs to have all investigations separate and reported publicly. The FDA has a long history of protecting big Pharma – especially the cash cow drugs - at the expense of the public. FDA tends to backtrack only when reports are leaked. Too many news investigations have exposed this cozy relationship to be deniable. The reason for separate investigation agencies in other industries has long been understood.
Feds found Pfizer too big to nail
Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, was caught illegally marketing Bextra, a painkiller that was taken off the market in 2005 because of safety concerns. When the criminal case was announced last fall, federal officials touted their prosecution as a model for tough, effective enforcement. "It sends a clear message" to the pharmaceutical industry, said Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division.
But beyond the fanfare, a CNN Special Investigation found another story, one that officials downplayed when they declared victory. It's a story about the power major pharmaceutical companies have even when they break the laws intended to protect patients.
Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.
Pfizer said in court that "the company's intent was pure": to foster a legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.
But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians "to serve as public relations spokespeople."
According to Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the inspector general at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "They pushed the envelope so far past any reasonable interpretation of the law that it's simply outrageous."
But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.
So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc.
Public records show that the subsidiary was incorporated in Delaware on March 27, 2007, the same day Pfizer lawyers and federal prosecutors agreed that the company would plead guilty in a kickback case against a company Pfizer had acquired a few years earlier.
As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.
In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months' profit.
It maintained its ability to do business with the federal government.
We're living in the 30s all over again. Too big to fail = too big.
Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label Drug Marketing
AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
...
Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA. Before approving a drug, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for the use proposed by the company. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for off-label uses.
...
The United States alleges that AstraZeneca illegally marketed Seroquel for uses never approved by the FDA. Specifically, between January 2001 through December 2006, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel to psychiatrists and other physicians for certain uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective (including aggression, Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar maintenance, dementia, depression, mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness). These unapproved uses were not medically accepted indications for which the United States and the state Medicaid programs provided coverage for Seroquel.
guess who bought the most antipsychotics
Pfizer pulls leukemia drug from U.S. market
Drugmaker Pfizer Inc is pulling a decade-old leukemia medicine off the U.S. market after a study found a higher death rate and no benefit for patients.
Mylotarg won approval under an abbreviated process to help bring treatments for serious diseases to patients more quickly. Medicines cleared in that way must pass follow-up tests to confirm they work.
The Food and Drug Administration said on Monday it asked Pfizer to withdraw the drug after a recent clinical trial raised new concerns about the product's safety and the drug "failed to demonstrate clinical benefit to patients enrolled in trials."
Mylotarg's first-quarter sales were $8.8 million, making it a small product for the world's largest drugmaker. The company reported first quarter revenue of $16.8 billion. Pfizer acquired Mylotarg when it bought Wyeth in October 2009.
The trial also showed more deaths in the first couple months of treatment. The fatality rate was 5.7 percent for Mylotarg patients, compared with 1.4 percent without the drug, Pfizer said.
The FDA cleared Mylotarg for sale in 2000
Once again, the evidence shows that when it comes to protecting OUR health and well being, the US government agencies tasked with that responsibility should not be your first choice. Nor second, third, or fourth.
no need to limit their ability to do anything to health, but I totally agree with you.
Once again, the evidence shows that when it comes to protecting OUR health and well being, the US government agencies tasked with that responsibility should not be your first choice. Nor second, third, or fourth.
Who should be first through fourth?
Ignorant cartoonists of course.
I support a fasttracked process for drugs for terminal diseases, as long as the patients are well informed that the drug is more experimental than one that went through the full process. It's a tough call; on one hand you're allowing companies to exploit desperate people for drug tests, but on the other hand you're allowing desperate people to have the choice of trying something experimental.
On the third hand, a drug with a 1.4% fatality rate does not seem to be a good candidate for the fasttrack process.
5.7 percent. 1.4 was those NOT on the drug.
Sorry, typo; I meant a DISEASE whose fatality rate is 1.4% under normal treatment doesn't seem to merit a fasttrack drug approval process.
Who should be first through fourth?
I'll nominate you, jinx, clodfobble, footfootfoot (where ever he is) and someone else. I think that makes four.
Faint Progress on Drug Payoffs
Legislation that would end a devious tactic used by some pharmaceutical companies to delay the introduction of cheaper generic drugs squeaked by a Senate panel recently. Its prospects for ultimate passage remain cloudy unless Senate Democratic leaders aggressively seize the opportunity to save billions of dollars for the federal budget and hard-pressed consumers.
Affordable medicine is an important aspect of health care reform. Lets see what the Dems do with it.
Dems won't do jack with it. They are all afraid of their own shadow. And after the elections, the Republicans will have the House, and we'll have gridlock.
Neither of them will do jack - politicians are bought and paid for by these companies. That this got by at all is a miracle. OH and a good one at that.
The reform that was needed was right here - manufacturers, equipment suppliers and pharmaceutical companies.