Drug Pushing...

Vioxx, Celebrex are the most recent FDA approved drugs to come into question. Will there be more? Wouldn't doubt it.

In recent years the FDA has sped up the approval process. Have they sped it up too much? how much money is floating around that "greases" the approval process?

We know that the pharmaceuticals are heavy into lobbying. From getting new drugs on the market, to blocking importation or price negotiations -- the drug companies are behind it.

Recommend checking this site out: it's run by Act-up and some may consider this group "partisan" -- but there is a good "primer" about the history of the FDA
FDA Action Handbook -- 9-12-88 http://www.actupny.org/documents/FDAhandbook2.html

Drug Advertising Skyrockets Feb. 13, 2002 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/13/health/main329293.shtml

Drug firms increased their spending on television advertising to consumers seven-fold from 1996 to 2000, but the spots still accounted for only a small fraction of promotional expenditures, according to research published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

Overall advertising spending aimed at ordinary people tripled between 1996 and 2000 to nearly $2.5 billion a year.

The finding cast some doubt on a perception among some health insurers and other groups that direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs has mushroomed into a dominant promotional method that distracts doctors and leads to needless prescriptions.

--------------

the FDA does not do testing -- it relies on reports/data provided by the company applying for approval. Why would a drug company submit a report/data that shows a drug to be harmful?

The FDA is no more than a rubber stamp for drug companies to give the appearance it is watching out for the public's health and safety. It's one big drug pusher.

Time for us to JUST SAY NO?

Under the current repug dominance in Congress and White House -- there is little chance that any significant investigations will occur regarding drug companies and the FDA. Not with this kind of money flowing into pockets.

Who is getting the money from lobby groups? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus_gif6.asp?ind=H04

so what can we do? suggestions?

My physician prescribed Lopid (cholesterol-lowering wonder drug). Within one week, I had a mock stroke in my right arm, googled the side effects of Lopid (the list reads like a demon's resume!), and asked the physician if the episode could have been an adverse drug reaction.

He was clearly ticked off that I had questioned BigPharma.

He told me that I had to stop taking the drug because I could probably sue him and BigPharma if they both claimed the drug was safe.

Now I'm on a NO FAT diet for who knows how long because physician and BigPharma can't guarantee that the drug is safe for consumption. Note that physician didn't recommend another 'safe' drug to replace the Lopid.

What I learned: If you don't know the right question to ask, you deserve to be screwed by physicians and BigPharma.

Banning a drug carrying some risk is not always best prescription
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-12-26-our-view_x.htm

"This is a very confusing situation," a top Food and Drug Administration scientist, Sandra Kweder, said of the controversy over Celebrex and other popular pain relievers. If the FDA is confused, imagine the feelings of doctors and patients caught in the backlash.

The story so far: Celebrex, along with Vioxx and Bextra, were a new class of drugs that held great promise to relieve suffering from arthritis without causing the digestive discomfort and bleeding associated with older medications. They were heavily marketed, and sales reached billions of dollars.

Three months ago, a study confirmed fears that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. Now Vioxx is off the market, pulled by its manufacturer, and last Thursday the FDA urged doctors to limit prescriptions for Celebrex and Bextra.

---------snip-----------

Distorting the level of risk. Clinical studies often contradict each other, and wide-ranging conclusions are drawn from small samples. In the recently reported link between naproxen and cardiac risk, fewer than 3% of the 2,500 elderly patients suffered heart attacks or strokes over three years, a relatively small number for that age group. "We're being given flash results based on single trials that haven't been properly analyzed," says Michael Weber, associate dean of New York's Downstate College of Medicine. "There may or may not be a safety problem. At this point, we don't know."

---snip-----

Make no mistake: The FDA is badly off-track. It's not watching closely enough to see that the drugs it approves are safe as well as effective. But most often, the right solution will be to restrict a drug's use, not to ban it.

says Michael Weber, associate dean of New York's Downstate College of Medicine. "There may or may not be a safety problem. At this point, we don't know."

Wouldn't you like to see that guy's investment portfolio and a list of his research grant funders?

Snake Oil Salesmen are in charge!

Sick 'em!!!!!

I sort of wish MM would team up with the Supersize Me guy, who is still mostly unknown.

It's getting difficult for MM to get past security, and I don't want to watch 90 minutes of MM being turned away time after time.

don't see it happening, at least not with the current mis-administration

but tv ads for drugs will just drive marketing back into the underground -- i.e. free samples from your doctor and perks for your doctor?

I don't have statistics on it - but I remember reading articles many years ago where drug companies gave alot of "Perks" to doctors that prescribed a particular drug

Drug companies make money by selling drugs -- but their focus is not on making drugs that help, it's making drugs that SELL -- this makes their stockholders very happy.

the FDA merely rubber stamps the product to give the appearance of credibility.

Sort of a double-edged sword?

Did BigPharma's hubris cause the current panic?

...for the Dr's and their staffs. I work in the medical computer industry and I see, on a daily basis, drug reps walking in with PILES of food. Every time I'm offered any of it (which happens frequently), I decline and tell them why (because these free lunches are paid for by consumers in the form of higher drug prices. Needless to say, many drug reps hate me...:D

when they know you've got their number!

Wear their hate proudly, Cooley Hurd!

and trying to regulate dangerous drugs is becoming a sick joke.


Retiring congressman to head drug lobby group

December 26, 2004

WASHINGTON - The pharmaceutical industry has named as its top lobbyist a longtime congressman who has been among those overseeing it. The new job is said to come with a $1 million-plus salary.

Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), who exercised jurisdiction over the industry as Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, will become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America on Jan. 3, when he retires from Congress.

Obtaining Tauzin's services was seen as a coup for the industry group, which is facing consumer demands for cheaper medications from Canada and the fallout from evidence of dangerous side effects from some drugs.

The appointment, announced Dec. 14, drew criticism from consumer advocates, along with calls for prohibiting lawmakers from negotiating employment while in office and for an extension of the one-year ban on former members lobbying old colleagues.

The 13-term congressman, who is 61, will go from a congressional salary of $158,100 to more than $1 million a year, said a knowledgeable source.


http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-ustau264096637dec26,0,5437165.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines

Billy is a tool. They're the ones I fear.