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

To: DJ MacWoW
Drug recalls will always occur because it is impossible to test drugs on a large enough number of people to uncover all extremely rare side effects (one would have to test millions, the equivalent of a general release). The question is "Is the benefit of this drug discovered in clinical testing large enough to justify releasing it to the public?" If the answer is yes, the drug is released and any side effects tracked. If disturbing trends show up, the drug is recalled.

If we did not release any medication without making absolutely certain it had no side effects, we would not have any medications. We have excellent treatments and even cures for many conditions that previously were fatal. All of these were made possible by careful studies followed by public release.

And there is a LOT of money to be made.

Well of course. It is a business. Drug manufacturers are not in it for charity. I don't begrudge them their profits because it is profits from drug sales that drive research and development of new drugs. Usually only a few drugs a company makes turn a profit, some never recoup their R&D costs and run a loss. Blockbuster drugs that make large sales are necessary in order to subsidize research for these other drugs, which otherwise would never be made.

133 posted on 06/25/2007 6:12:06 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: ahayes; TooLoudSchnauzer
NEJM-HPV Vaccination — More Answers, More Questions May 10, 2007

In the FUTURE I trial,5 rates of grades 1 to 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ per 100 person-years were 4.7 in vaccinated women and 5.9 in unvaccinated women, an efficacy of 20%. Analyses by lesion type indicate that this reduction was largely attributable to a lower rate of grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in vaccinated women; no efficacy was demonstrable for higher-grade disease,

In the larger FUTURE II trial,6 rates of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ were 1.3 in vaccinated women and 1.5 in unvaccinated women, an efficacy of 17%. In analyses by lesion type, the efficacy appears to be significant only for grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; no efficacy was demonstrable for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.

Another factor explaining the modest efficacy of the vaccine is the role of oncogenic HPV types not included in the vaccine. At least 15 oncogenic HPV types have been identified,4 so targeting only 2 types may not have had a great effect on overall rates of preinvasive lesions In contrast to a plateau in the incidence of disease related to HPV types 16 and 18 among vaccinated women, the overall disease incidence regardless of HPV type continued to increase, raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18. An interim analysis of vaccine trial data submitted to the FDA11 showed a disproportionate, but not statistically significant, number of cases of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia related to nonvaccine HPV types among vaccinated women. Updated analyses of data from these ongoing trials will be important to determine the effect of vaccination on rates of preinvasive lesions caused by nonvaccine HPV types

What can be inferred from these data about the potential effect of vaccination among girls 11 and 12 years of age? The FUTURE trials did not enroll subjects in this age group.

136 posted on 06/25/2007 8:05:44 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]

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