|
abouttopeel
Jan 4, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #1 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 190
|
Breaking news:
In reply to: The British Medical Journal reported in its Jan. 1 issue that documents it received from an anonymous source indicated that Prozac's manufacturer, Eli Lilly & Co., was aware in the 1980s that the drug could have potentially troubling side effects.
In reply to: The journal said one of the records, dated November 1988, reported that fluoxetine, the generic name for Prozac, had caused "behavioral disturbances" in clinical trials.
http://www.newsday.com/...=ny-health-headlines
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 4, 2005, 4:16 PM
Post #2 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Not necessarily a big fan of drug companies, but when needed... their products sure to come in handy.
IBuProfEN4LYF
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Jan 4, 2005, 4:24 PM
Post #3 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
If not for the research and devlopment efforts of drug companies I would either be dead, or have had several limbs amputated due to various injuries and infections.
|
|
|
|
|
abouttopeel
Jan 4, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #4 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 190
|
Okay, okay, let's revise. Any defenders of drug company ethics? I think we can almost all agree that many of the drugs of the past century have made our lives better.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 4, 2005, 4:33 PM
Post #5 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Unfortunately, it's a catch 22. We want the companies to spend/risk billions to develop new miracle drugs, but we want a near 100% guarantee that these drugs are safe and we want them at a low price.
It's kind of hard to demand the latest greatest cure, without cost and risk.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jan 4, 2005, 4:38 PM
Post #6 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Back on the topic that I presume you started this thread about... should drug companies be held accountable for hiding known side effects, HELL YES!!!
I remember back in the 90s hearing stories about long term users of Prozac being unable to stop using the drug because of horrific side effects. The areas of the brain effected by the drug went completely haywire when the patients quit using the product.
|
|
|
|
|
abouttopeel
Jan 4, 2005, 4:46 PM
Post #7 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 190
|
I guess side effects are one thing that I can kind of accept. Not releasing some of the side effects or knowing that a drug could be harmful and not releasing that information is appalling (in my humble opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2005, 4:52 PM
Post #8 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
All drugs have negative side effects I am told. Aspirin makes your stomach bleed for example. I'm guessing benefit vs risk analysis is well established in the industry.
So I don't think it is drug company ethics in particular that are at fault.
It is CORPORATE ethics that are at fault. And they will remain at fault, for that is the true purpose of corprrate law... to shield the management and owners from personal responsibility for the actions of their companies.
I believe that corp executives and officers SHOULD BE held PERSONALLY accountable for the failures of their companies, as in the pocket book. A lot less crime would occur in corp America if those running the show come to believe they will personally suffer for the misdeeds that occur on their watches.
By and large that is not the case today.
I worked for an entrapaneur... ran a 300 employee company he built from scratch. Bernie was intimately involved with running his company, down to the employee level. When you wasted company money, it was made quickly apparent you were wasting BERNIE'S money. When the top officer in a company assumes personal responsibility it is reflected throughout the entire organization.
That sense of ownership, of personal responsibility and involvement is largely absent from the corp world. Of course there are exceptions, but even the exceptions are shielded by law from large swaths of legal personal responsibility.
It renders corporations unthinking machines, designed to generate short term profits for the shareholders, none of whom are responsible for the misdeeds of a company either.
Shield laws should be revamped. Until then... nothing changes.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Jan 4, 2005, 4:55 PM
Post #9 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
I defend them...they have donated millions of dollars worth of drugs to the relief affort in SE Asia. If a few companies are crooks deal with them accordingly. Like anything else, a few bad eggs blackens the eyes of the whole industry.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Jan 4, 2005, 5:35 PM
Post #10 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: All drugs have negative side effects I am told. Aspirin makes your stomach bleed for example. I'm guessing benefit vs risk analysis is well established in the industry.
hmm. I think you'd be guessing wrong in general. The problem to me is the system. You have an FDA that effectively says "If you can show us it's safe and effective once, we'll leave you alone". You also have a legal system that holds the drug companies accountable for things they knew about. And the initial FDA process gives them cover for problems down the road. This, and profit, give motive to the companies to look the other way when problems arise. What would be better is if the cover from lawsuits came built in (i.e. tort reform). For that reform, companies should be forced to pay for ongoing comparative and safety studies.
|
|
|
|
|
johnson6102002
Jan 4, 2005, 7:23 PM
Post #11 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 843
|
In reply to: IBuProfEN4LYF
:shock: :evil: not for me im alergic more like take this and end my life
|
|
|
|
|
vertk8r
Jan 5, 2005, 5:42 AM
Post #12 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 61
|
In reply to: Unfortunately, it's a catch 22. We want the companies to spend/risk billions to develop new miracle drugs, but we want a near 100% guarantee that these drugs are safe and we want them at a low price. It's kind of hard to demand the latest greatest cure, without cost and risk.
My thoughts exactly. :D
|
|
|
|
|
risos
Jan 5, 2005, 6:17 AM
Post #13 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2003
Posts: 79
|
I've been working with kids for almost 8 years now and Ive seen some of the amizing effects these pills can have on them.
ADD, ADHD, Depression and so on... I would have a student crying for a whole week and then bouncing off the walsl the next while his parents and phsychiatrist would experiment on different drugs to improve his hyperactivity.... For god's sake the kid ate candy like crazy and sat in front of a computer a playstation or a tv the whole day If he did some excercise he probabbly woulnt be so hyper and no one would need to mess around with his brain.
As I have seen cases severe cases of ADD/ADHD Ive seen misbehaved kids who were never given any disciplņin in their lives be treated for ADD and being dulled so that they would not even consider doing anything at all....
Part of the solution I feel is to depend less on drugs....
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jan 5, 2005, 6:32 AM
Post #14 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Hmm, considering that both my arthritis medications have been implicated in heart attack problems.
First Vioxx.
Then Celebrex.
The first inkling I had of this whole issue was not from a courtesy notice from the drug company, or from my health insurance provider, but from Yahoo News.
I can't take ibuprofen because I have bleeding ulcers. Time to find a new painkiller that won't kill me.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Jan 5, 2005, 10:29 PM
Post #15 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
The question really is about the ethics, not so much the product. By and large, so called psychiatric drugs have been a bust, mostly because these conditions are not strictly medical (bioligical) and canīt be brought to heel with chemicals that often are highly toxic. And the ethics and statistical shenanagas that these companies use to thieve some of these drugs past the FDA is amazing and very sad.
On the other hand, drugs for strictly medical problems have saved countless lives.
There is a good and dark side to the whole thing.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Jan 6, 2005, 12:19 AM
Post #16 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: The first inkling I had of this whole issue was not from a courtesy notice from the drug company, or from my health insurance provider, but from Yahoo News.
Litigation would probably prevent the drug company from sending out wholesale notices (and inviting wholesale lawsuits) and the insurance company is not your health care provider. An insurance company is the keeper of a pooling program, a conduit between you and the health care providers, nothing more. It is not designed to effect change, but it does react to it.
Sorry to hear you are worried about what you take in the way of medicine though.
Interesting thread.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffhanger9
Moderator
Jan 6, 2005, 1:18 AM
Post #17 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 2275
|
I guess you could say I defend them...I work for a pretty big one..
In reply to: The problem to me is the system. You have an FDA that effectively says "If you can show us it's safe and effective once, we'll leave you alone".
There are alot more than one test my man. I cant speak for the standards in the 80s but nowadays its enough to make even an obsessive compulsive go nuts (no offense intended). It takes everything from import quotas to research to workstation software upgrades at least 3 times longer than almost any other industry because everything has to be tested and validated repeatedly. And once it is approved, they hardly leave you alone. We have a handful of government agencies (DEA, FDA, EPA, OSHA to name a few) who randomly show up when ever they damn well please for quality, compliance, validation inspections etc. It is a total PITA. :evil:
But...then you remember that you are manufacturing schedule I and II narcotics and become pretty damn glad that someone is actually making sure that this stuff does what it is supposed to - saving peoples lives.
In reply to: You also have a legal system that holds the drug companies accountable for things they knew about. |
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 6, 2005, 1:27 AM
Post #18 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Hmm, considering that both my arthritis medications have been implicated in heart attack problems. First Vioxx. Then Celebrex
I haven't seen the data on the relative risk for heart disease for either of these drugs, but Celebrex is still available, and as dirtineye suggested, you should be looking at this drug from a risk-benefit perspective, not a risk-only perspective. If you are otherwise at low risk for heart disease, the benefit to taking Celebrex might outweigh the risk.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
napoleon_in_rags
Jan 6, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #19 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586
|
How many lives have been saved by Penecilin???
On the other side, I think it is bad when drug companies advertise on TV - especially the really vague commercial where you don't know what the drug does. Except make your life better.
My Favorite is the Herpes medications. I would gladly get Herpes from the women in those commercials.
|
|
|
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Jan 6, 2005, 2:28 AM
Post #20 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 362
|
In reply to: I would gladly get Herpes from the women in those commercials.
You and me both kid. :wink:
I'd just like to give it up to my favorite drug company: British Columbia. Keep up the good work, boys 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
rendog
Jan 6, 2005, 2:38 AM
Post #21 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 2468
|
I dunno, does my buddy Mike qualify as a company? He certainly has enough people working for him during harvest time.
if that's the case then I would defend him to the bitter end
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 6, 2005, 5:11 AM
Post #22 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: I remember back in the 90s hearing stories about long term users of Prozac being unable to stop using the drug because of horrific side effects. The areas of the brain effected by the drug went completely haywire when the patients quit using the product.
You mean like some diabetics I know who have blood sugar levels go totally haywire when they stop using their insulin?
Maybe we should ban insulin, too?
Drugs (medications and illicit substances) all cause changes in the body. That's the whole point. Some of those changes are good (my sister is alive today thanks to the benefits of SSRIs,) some of those changes are bad. It is not easy to predict when the drug will work and cause no harm, when it will work and cause harm, when it will not work but not cause harm, or when it will not work but cause harm.
Thus, research. And research costs a lot of money.
A pill may only cost $0.25 to make, but that's the second pill made. The first pill might cost upwards of $14 million.
Should pharmaceutical companies be closely monitored, held to high moral and ethical standards, and reported for immoral actions? Oh, hell yes. But they're not the evil corporate mongrels some folks make them out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jan 6, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #23 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: By and large, so called psychiatric drugs have been a bust, mostly because these conditions are not strictly medical (bioligical) and canīt be brought to heel with chemicals that often are highly toxic.
They aren't a complete bust, but you are correct that simply taking a pill is not adequate therapy for conditions like depression. Prozac is a fairly useful drug, certainly a big improvement over Lithium, which can be quite toxic if you take too much of it.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Jan 6, 2005, 6:30 AM
Post #24 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: In reply to: The problem to me is the system. You have an FDA that effectively says "If you can show us it's safe and effective once, we'll leave you alone". But...then you remember that you are manufacturing schedule I and II narcotics and become pretty damn glad that someone is actually making sure that this stuff does what it is supposed to - saving peoples lives.
In reply to: In reply to: You also have a legal system that holds the drug companies accountable for things they knew about. I'm not sure I understand this statement...whats wrong with that? Why shouldnt they be accontable?? |
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Jan 6, 2005, 6:42 AM
Post #25 of 39
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: The question really is about the ethics, not so much the product. By and large, so called psychiatric drugs have been a bust, mostly because these conditions are not strictly medical (bioligical) and canīt be brought to heel with chemicals that often are highly toxic. And the ethics and statistical shenanagas that these companies use to thieve some of these drugs past the FDA is amazing and very sad.
Um, I dunno, I think Prozac and the others are pretty amazing drugs that have helped a large number of people and saved lives with very few side effects. The reason is because though the conditions are "not strictly biological" there really is a huge biological element to them and in fact, they often CAN be brought to heel with chemicals, otherwise we wouldn;'t be using them.
One issue is peoples odd association with risk. If one teenager out 10,000 becomes MORE depressed and commits suicide, people can't handle that, yet they can handle allowing their kids to drive which could have a higher risk (I don't really know...) A lot of it is about perceptions and risk management. How much would you risk to feel reasonably happy? How bad does it have to be before you'd take a small risk with a drug? How much money is it worth? Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
