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: Rhiannon

My doctors are always prescribing a drug instead of promoting a healthy lifestyle, diet and exercise (groan!). I have to take MORE coumadin, MORE lipitor, when to me it looks like my cholesterol is doing fine. I refuse to take MORE until I can prove my diet is taking care of it, or will take care of it when I get serious about it. I don't eat a lot of crap.


41 posted on 11/19/2004 6:03:56 AM PST by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

Steroids taken systemically (as a pill or a shot) can have nasty side effects. Inhaled steroids are similar to using steroid creams on the skin: they do not have systemic side effects. And, it is NOT recommended to use Serevent without inhaled steroids. Believe me.


42 posted on 11/19/2004 6:08:02 AM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

No kidding! I was on Vioxx and got a bleeding ulcer. Four units of blood later, I am still alive, but I'll never take anything like that ever again.

43 posted on 11/19/2004 6:15:13 AM PST by TopDog2 (The President isn't perfect, but he beats the heck out of the second place finisher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No risk here. APPROVED...
44 posted on 11/19/2004 6:18:56 AM PST by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rhiannon
You can say that again. These drugs are DANGEROUS and people blindly trust what their doctors tell them. I'll never forget when a doctor friend said that nutritional supplements are dangerous. I wanted to gag. He obviously didn't think about what he was saying.

I can give a list of serious problems resulting from prescription drugs in people I know. As a matter of fact, my mom's life is a living hell right now because of them. Her problems spill over onto all the family. People are stupid to not question the safety of drugs.

45 posted on 11/19/2004 6:20:56 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

I still have major problems w/ the inhaled steriods. You wouldn't want to be around me when I've had them!!


46 posted on 11/19/2004 7:35:32 AM PST by KosmicKitty (Well... There you go again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Just because 5 already very sick people die a little sooner as a result of an unforeseen side effect of a relatively new drug, doesn't negate the tremendous benefits most of these provide to tens of thousands of other people -- often extending many of those people's lives.

Thalidomide

47 posted on 11/19/2004 7:49:24 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
Again, the dosage is SOOO small and the absorption is minimal, I would rethink your attitude on inhaled steroids. As a physician, I would only RARELY prescribe systemics steroids, but inhaled steroids are a great therapy for moderate to sever asthma. Sometimes people are so afraid when they hear the word it can effect their reaction to them. But in reality, they are quite benign when inhaled at standard dosages.

At any rate, best of luck to you with managing your asthma.

48 posted on 11/19/2004 7:56:01 AM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

That was an unusual case (and also a very old one, which happened under much more primitive research technology than is in current use), but my point still holds. The level of scrutiny and standards of proof currently required for new drug approval delay new drugs by years -- and most of those drugs have benefits that far outweigh their incidence (if any) or serious side effects. All the people who died or suffered serious harm due to those delays need to be offset against the few who are harmed or killed by the occasional premature approval of a drug that turns out to have serious problems.

Lots of innocent people have gotten killed in Iraq since the U.S. military went in, but only loony leftists fail to offset that number against the much greater number of innocent people who were getting killed every year before we went in, and would have continued getting killed if we had stayed out.


49 posted on 11/19/2004 8:09:23 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
That was an unusual case (and also a very old one, which happened under much more primitive research technology than is in current use), but my point still holds. The level of scrutiny and standards of proof currently required for new drug approval delay new drugs by years -- and most of those drugs have benefits that far outweigh their incidence (if any) or serious side effects.

Check the records. Thalidomide was never approved by the FDA which was then under much stricter scrutiny standards than today. It was never sold in the US until recent years as a treatment for leprosy --- Hanson's Disease. The damage in the 1950s and 60s was done primarily in Western Europe and Canada where the drug was rushed through the approval process. The only Americas damaged by Thalidomide (actually their children)were those who obtained the drug in either Europe, Mexico or Canada.

I would argue that with mass marketed drugs, approval should always error on the side of caution. The FDA used to do that and in just that one case of Thalidomide , saved many hundreds of thousands of people from a very grisley fate. Today, I have my doubts they excersice the proper caution.

50 posted on 11/19/2004 8:27:25 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

the reason to use inhaled steroids is that they don't cause the side effects of oral steroids. And the steroids prevent the edema from the allergic process that contributes to deaths in asthmatics.

If you wheeze without allergic componant, don't use steroids. If you have mild asthma with an allergic component, use Singulair to block this secondary reaction (due to leukotrienes).

But if you use your inhalers more than twice a week, you need to use something to prevent wheezing.

I only use Serevent, and agree with you there. But during hayfever season, I add local steroids since anti histoamines and even Singulair make me sleepy...(I even get sleepy with Clariten). So I use steroids as a first line during allergy season, but the rest of the year, I don't, I only use singulair when it's bad, and Serevent when I wheeze, since I can't tolorate the jitteryness from Albuterol.


51 posted on 11/19/2004 2:31:36 PM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc

I don't wheeze too much anymore (did when i was a kid, but not now). Mine is more of contriction of my airways & being allergic to dust, I have allergey problems all year. Have had some improvement w/ the allergy shots I just finished.

Singlar had no effect on me. I'm taking accolate right now, but I haven't notice really any difference w/ the accolate or with out it. :-)


52 posted on 11/20/2004 8:20:50 AM PST by KosmicKitty (Well... There you go again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

try advir 100/50 for minimal steroid...most of our COPD patients use this low dose. Our allergic types use 250/50 or 500 /50 to get higher steroid.
At least allergy shots worked for you. Lots of insurance and HMO won't pay for them...they worked for my mom, but I never had time to go to the allergist since there are none nearby to do testing and I am controlled with Asthmacort.


53 posted on 11/20/2004 1:42:55 PM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nov3
"I refuse to take it. "

My husband is on Lipitor -- someone at work told him Crestor was better -- when he asked his cardiologist about it, the doctor said that Crestor, in his experience, was not as good a drug for that purpose as Lipitor. He obviously didn't want to prescribe it.

Carolyn

54 posted on 11/20/2004 1:49:42 PM PST by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pharmamom
Have to say that every drug that requires a prescription is potentially hazardous.

Exactly ---- even those that don't require a prescription are. Everyone should check the listings in the PDR before they take drugs --- and remember that those are just the known side-effects.

55 posted on 11/20/2004 1:54:10 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
I'll never forget when a doctor friend said that nutritional supplements are dangerous.

They also can be --- and they aren't necessary if someone eats a well-rounded diet of just real food.

56 posted on 11/20/2004 1:56:02 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
A few of them can be but they're far safer than chemical drugs and this doctor wasn't listening to himself.

I allege few eat a well-rounded diet.

Medical doctors only know how to prescribe drugs. They're dangerous and no thought is given as to long-term side effects. I've seen too many horror stories to ever put my trust blindly into taking any prescription drug a doctor prescribes. I'll research it first before I take it.

57 posted on 11/21/2004 3:57:03 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Nov3

Re: Crestor - everyone I know who has been on a low carb diet has lowered total cholesterol & "bad" cholesterol and raised good cholesterol. FWIW.


58 posted on 11/21/2004 4:09:42 AM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma
Yes you're right --- some supplements are perfectly safe --- but just like everything one should research before using. Just like use of vitamin pills can lead to imbalances, some of the herbal supplements aren't safe --- depends on the toxicity of the weed.

I find it interesting that doctors seldom ask patients about their eating habits --- how often they drink soft drinks, eat junk foods and all. If the patient has high cholesterol it's just a new prescription. I know a man who had emboli from a hypercoagulation disorder 10 years ago who was told he had to take coumadin -- he said that is rat poison so he told the doctor no thanks --- instead he just takes one aspirin a day and doesn't need expensive lab tests monthly and he said he's had no problems in 10 years doing this. He doesn't have to worry about what he eats--- he can eat salads which he couldn't if on coumadin, he doesn't have to worry about bleeding to death because he watches himself for bruising and bleeding from minor cuts.

59 posted on 11/21/2004 7:21:59 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Why would doctors ask patients what they eat? They know nothing about nutrition. They only know drugs and there are many times when there are better alternatives than drugs. I know, I've been there and so has many in my family.

Sorry, but I have no faith in traditional medicine any longer. Doctors scare me to death. I wouldn't hestitate to see a doctor for an injury but for chronic illness, they're dangerous.

60 posted on 11/21/2004 12:15:44 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | 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