Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Five Drugs Cited as Potential Health Risks
The Washington Post ^ | November 18, 2004 | Diedtra Henderson

Posted on 11/18/2004 5:50:28 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Knitting A Conundrum
Yes, sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the "magic pill" patients, not to ALL patients. Specifically: doctors are too quick to prescribe a pill when other solutions are possible (and necessary). ("Oh, you're having a rough month? Here, take some drugs.")

I realize other solutions are not possible for every patient.
21 posted on 11/18/2004 7:48:15 PM PST by PrtzlLogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PrtzlLogic

I agree...tooo many doctors treating unhappiness like it was depression....

To be happy, you need to do the right things.

Our culture is not encouraging that enough.

Therefore, we want a magic pill instead of doing the right things, cause the right things would interfere with something else we want to do.

And we want instant gratification, to boot.

What a strange world we live in.

My advice to most people is to throw away their TV, listen to their kids, put their family on the high priority track, and learn to be grateful. Sure changes your outlook on life!


22 posted on 11/18/2004 8:02:40 PM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pharmamom
Soon the American public will get the medicine--and the medications--they so richly deserve. No company is going to come out with a drug with any risk of serious side effects, knowing that between the press, Congress and lawsuits, they are going to lose their shirts.

IMHO I believe that's already happened and is happening even now. One of the hidden fatalities against these law suits are products that never come to be, or that may only come into being many, many years down the road.

Money that companies would have used in R&D, et. al. gets gobbled up paying up, buying off, and/or going to court. The ultimate winner? The tort lawyers. The ultimate victim? The person whose quality of life would have been improved (dramatically) for the better.

23 posted on 11/18/2004 8:38:18 PM PST by yankeedame ("Born with the gift of laughter & a sense that the world was mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Not on the list because the list is of drugs designed to treat a disease state, not kill someone. RU486 is designed to kill someone, not treat a disease state.


24 posted on 11/18/2004 8:40:57 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Heh... touche. (I keep reverting to that "okay where is the pregnancy is a DISEASE mentality" when I read this media garbage too much)


25 posted on 11/18/2004 8:44:07 PM PST by cgk (The Left was beaten by Pres Bush twice & will never have another shot at him... who's dumb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Liberals and the subset called democrats believe pregnancy is an 'elective disease' ... if a woman wants it to be a disease, she's infected and abortion is the cure; if she's happy, she's pregnant.


26 posted on 11/18/2004 8:47:23 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I heard this guy all over the news today. Frankly he sounds like someone with an agenda, ala Richard Clarke. If he's bashing Accutane than I don't believe a word he says. The drug has been used for decades, is a near miracle drug for many people, and should not be pulled. Sure there are some risks, and they were known 20 years ago and taken into consideration throughout the course of the treatments.

Utopians and lawyers are a destructive combination.


27 posted on 11/18/2004 8:48:06 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So, just how much of an increase in risk is there from Vioxx? I have heard from patients who use Vioxx that they're willing to accept the risk because it allowed them to live a normal life with their arthritis.
28 posted on 11/18/2004 8:49:19 PM PST by TChris (You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
So, just how much of an increase in risk is there from Vioxx? I have heard from patients who use Vioxx that they're willing to accept the risk because it allowed them to live a normal life with their arthritis.

IIRC (and I may not be), they found something like a 50% increased risk of heart attacks in those that took Vioxx for more than 18 months straight.

Really though, the recall of Vioxx is no big deal to the overwhelming majority of arthritis sufferers. Vioxx, Celebrex and other members of that class of medicines are not any better at controlling arthritis pain than plain old Advil or Aleve. Their only real benefit is that they don't cause upset stomachs in patients prone to that sort of thing.

29 posted on 11/18/2004 9:09:00 PM PST by Dont Mention the War (How important a Senator can you be if Dick Cheney's never told you to "go [bleep] yourself"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pharmamom
No company is going to come out with a drug with any risk of serious side effects, knowing that between the press, Congress and lawsuits, they are going to lose their shirts.

Exactly. It's the reason we have little flu vaccine this year. It was outsourced to escape trial lawyers

But this article is a way over the top. Accutane has been on the market for over 20 years. Does it have side effects? Yes. But compared to the average birth control pill, these effects are doodly. BCP are way more dangerous but you won't hear about that.

All in all I would trust the FDA more than Congress. Back in the 80's the Congress listened to Jack Klugman's (he played Quincy on the TV show and did an episode on orphan drugs) testimony on orphan drugs before making their decision. That is very scary.

30 posted on 11/18/2004 9:15:49 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TChris
So, just how much of an increase in risk is there from Vioxx?

"Merck finally had to acknowledge the truth, but only by accident. The company undertook a large, randomized trial of 2,600 patients with colon polyps in hopes of proving that Vioxx could help their condition. In the process, though, Merck discovered that 3.5 percent of patients taking Vioxx suffered heart attacks or strokes as against 1.9 percent taking a placebo. Merck at last did the right thing by voluntarily and abruptly taking Vioxx off the market."

Good Riddance to a Bad Drug (Vioxx)

31 posted on 11/18/2004 9:24:30 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
Their only real benefit is that they don't cause upset stomachs...

A better, more accurate, statement would be:

"They do not cause or aggravate bleeding ulcers, as do NSAIDS."

Hope that helps.

DG

 

 

32 posted on 11/18/2004 9:34:03 PM PST by DoorGunner ("Kerry -- shamelessly whoring after medals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283267/posts


33 posted on 11/18/2004 10:02:15 PM PST by Tarantulas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoorGunner; Dont Mention the War

Actually folks still suffered bleeding ulcers with Cox-2 inhibitors. Their selling point was that they reduced the incidence of major GI bleeds from about 25% in folks still taking older NSAIDs to about 20%, IIRC. That's still a lot of emergency transfusions, emergency procedures and traditional open surgery avoided.


34 posted on 11/18/2004 10:06:50 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas

Thanks for the link.


35 posted on 11/18/2004 10:11:17 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
Really though, the recall of Vioxx is no big deal to the overwhelming majority of arthritis sufferers. Vioxx, Celebrex and other members of that class of medicines are not any better at controlling arthritis pain than plain old Advil or Aleve. Their only real benefit is that they don't cause upset stomachs in patients prone to that sort of thing.

This sort of thinking is the problem with the way the FDA approves pharmaceuticals and the way trials are done. Medications can behave very differently for different people. Aleve is wonderful for my migraines, but did little for bursitis. Celebrex was wonderful. However, for my father, Celebrex was worthless and caused problems. [He went onto Vioxx for a couple of years...and then had a heart attack... :-( ]

The statistics and theories don't account for the personal variation in efficacy. While the average advantage for most people is merely the lack of aggravating an ulcer, there is a great difference in individual response in terms of effectiveness, too--varying from patient to patient for a single medication, as well as from one medication to another in a single patient.

36 posted on 11/18/2004 10:39:47 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum
Don't forget there are real needs, and not everybody is escaping.

God bless you, Knitting. There are chemical imbalances in some people and no amount of wishing it differently or "bucking oneself up" will help. There are, no doubt, overprescribers but for the people who have the problems you describe, taking medication for them is no different than some diabetics needing insulin. There are genetic aberrations that clearly benefit from medications carefully monitored.
37 posted on 11/18/2004 10:47:28 PM PST by hummingbird ("If it wasn't for the insomnia, I could have gotten some sleep!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: codyjacksmom
I have been taking Crestor for months now, along with another cholesterol medication. It has worked great and no side affects at all.

Me too, except that it has the side effect of lowering my cholesterol level to Olympic athlete levels.

Gimme another slice of bacon, please.

38 posted on 11/18/2004 10:51:47 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

serevent alone is the problem. We usually use ADvir which has steroids in it.

The increase in death is similar to that found with inhalers: You stop the initial attack, but six hours later, get the more severe edema with spasm that doesn't respong to bronchodilators.

Also, Serevent is not used "as needed". It is used constantly, so those using serevent are the more severe cases of asthma, i.e. those who are supposed to be on steroids. So wait for the Advir studies come out first.

I use serevent because I can't tolorate Albuterol, and rarely need a bronchodilator as long as I take my steroid inhaler. About the only place I use it is when I go to Walmart, which for some reason makes me wheeze, probably the cleaning fluid they use to clean the place.


39 posted on 11/19/2004 5:24:52 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
We usually use ADvir which has steroids in it.

And there are those asthmatics who refuse to take steroids because of the nasty side effects. I'd rather be wheezing and steroid free. With a serevent inhaler, for the first time in my life, I felt like I didn't have asthma. Then when the inhaler was deemed an ENVIROMENTAL hazard, the company switch to the discus, which dumps some powder on my tongue, but isn't anywhere near as effective, but still better than Advair!! I would rather take my chances with serevent than with any steroid drug!!! Wish we could sign a form releasing the drug company from responsibility if we chose to use their product.

40 posted on 11/19/2004 6:00:08 AM PST by KosmicKitty (Well... There you go again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson