Trust In Big Pharma, FDA Fading

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
Vioxx. Celebrex. Now Aleve. What's a Patient to Think?

When Audrey Eisen flicked her computer on last Monday night and read the news that the painkiller Aleve had been linked to heart attacks, she winced in disbelief.

Ms. Eisen, 64, a retired professor who lives in New York, had just returned from her drugstore with a package of Aleve. Her pharmacist allowed her to return it the next morning, no questions asked.

It was the third painkiller in four months that Ms. Eisen, who has degenerative spine and disk disease, had quit abruptly because of studies linking the drugs to heart attacks. She flushed her Vioxx down the toilet in September, after it was withdrawn from the market, and switched to Celebrex. But when problems surfaced with Celebrex this month, she had to stop that, too.

"I was extremely angry," said Ms. Eisen, whose father, two uncles, and grandparents died of heart disease. "Now I just don't trust the Food and Drug Administration anymore. I told a friend of mine, who had also been on Celebrex, that I was sure there'd be some other surprise in a few days."

Many Americans who have relied for pain relief on pills believed to be safe say their faith has been eroded in the system intended to protect them. Longtime users of Celebrex and similar drugs are swearing off them, even though the details of the studies that led to the recent warnings are still under wraps, and other studies have found no added dangers.

Some doctors say they are concerned their patients may be overreacting, but psychologists who study how people evaluate risks say the widespread anxiety, raft of lawsuits and feelings of broken trust are neither surprising nor, necessarily, unwarranted.

"Based on what we know so far, it's understandable that people are worried that any risk that emerges with these drugs is probably the tip of the iceberg," said Dr. George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

"They hear that there was one study that didn't find an increase in heart attacks, but then they think, 'O.K., but how many studies have been suppressed?' " Dr. Loewenstein said. "There's a danger of a cataclysmic reduction or collapse of trust in physicians and in the government, and what we're seeing now could be a leading indicator of that."

Studies show that most people, learning of a drug's potentially deadly side effects or some other potential hazard, will accept a certain amount of danger if they feel they have unfiltered information and can properly weigh the risks. But in the last few months, the bad news trickling out of drug companies and from federal health officials has been murky and confusing, psychologists say.

"It's not like there's good information and people don't understand it," said Dr. Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon. "There's lousy information and people are frustrated and acting appropriately."

Vioxx was pulled from the shelves by Merck in September when a large clinical trial linked it to heart attacks. On Thursday, responding to evidence that Celebrex and Bextra may pose the same risks, the F.D.A. recommended that physicians limit their use of the drugs. But the agency has come under criticism that it first learned Vioxx was unsafe several years ago, and the news on Thursday prompted consumer groups to say the agency was once again siding with drug companies by not acting more forcefully.

In the meantime, millions of people on Celebrex are forced to make sense of conflicting data on the drug's safety. One study has linked it to heart problems at high doses; two others, including one last week, showed no such risks. And because the studies were intended to look at the drug's effectiveness in preventing colon polyps or warding off Alzheimer's, experts say it is unclear whether the researchers controlled for underlying risks of heart disease like weight, age and smoking. The National Institutes of Health has not yet released that information.

More... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/health/policy/28pain.html?oref=login (registration required)

http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041228/ZNYT04/412280366/1051/news01 (non-registration required)


Hooray.
 
fda is dirty. they ll do anything for a cash bonus. fda is controlled by the giants. one example is stevia. this is a herb that is as sweet as sugar is, but with zero calories. it was presented to fda to be considered as a sugar alternative, but the sugar czars lobbied for it to be classed as supplement. nuts. i dont think i would put much stock in a organization that is more concerned about the thickness of its wallet than the health of an entire population.
 
I'm not sure how swayed the FDA is when it comes to drugs. Unfortunately, they do rely on a lot of information that comes from the drug companies themselves. It can be easy to forget that the drug companies aren't there necessarily to help people, but they are companies that answer to stockholders and profits. I'm not against the companies making a profit as a lot of that does go into research for new, better, healthier drugs.
The proper checks and balances don't appear to be in place when it comes to drugs.

OTH, oftentimes long-term problems aren't always apparent. Think of how many people take an aspirin a day for a heathy heart. Could be safe, but what happens when we find out that people who have been taking it for 20 years start suffering from liver or kidney cancer. I am not saying Aspirin is bad, but oftentimes long term problems are always evident.

The most troubling part to me is that the FDA was aware of the the link to heart problems years ago. I can understand if they don't have the knowledge, but its troubling that they had the knowledge and did not act on it.
 
iamidiotdeafboy, I agree with you. I remember about that part as well.

Taylor, you brought up a good point and I want to discuss about that part.. but I don't have enough time and I really need to hit the sack ASAP lol. However, in fact, Pharma scientists often to be told by Pharma's superiors to neglect or didn't record the bad side effects and results. That's the part where fault shouldn't be on FDA but FDA shared the fault(s) as well in other issues.

I will discuss about that more next week thru this topic or thru our im, either way.
 
Yeah they make it hard for canabis to be used as medicine yet they let people sell backyard grass in gelatin capsules as hard-on pills you see in those midnight till 5 am infomercials.

Richard
 
Those new drugs that have been released... I don't entirely trust. Various kinds of pain-killers have been around for many years, which are the ones I trust most. :thumb:

I do find it odd and weird how they advertise those new drugs on television, but with those annoying and stupid warnings like... "may give you cramps, headaches, etc". :crazy:
 
VamPyroX said:
Those new drugs that have been released... I don't entirely trust. Various kinds of pain-killers have been around for many years, which are the ones I trust most. :thumb:

I do find it odd and weird how they advertise those new drugs on television, but with those annoying and stupid warnings like... "may give you cramps, headaches, etc". :crazy:

I agree! I trust the older drugs that have been around for awhile. As for new stuff, they have to put those disclaimers on their for legal reasons ('You never told me that it was cause me to go limp')
My favorite is for a mens enhancement (can't remember if its for Cialis or Levitra) that says 'Men suffering from erections lasting 6 hours or longer should seek immediate medical help). First, I'd hate to have to make that 911 call for an ambulance...secondly, if erections in my house last 6 hours or longer, you can bet your butt there's gonna be a party ;)

Another favorite disclaimer is for weight-loss pills. 'This drug only works in conjuction with proper diet and regular excercise'. If I had a proper diet with regular excercise, I wouldn't need their weight-loss pill, now would I?
 
Last edited:
I hate good drugs.

If I were sick and I would just sleep little a lot and rest a lot. Eat good foods and drink a lot of water. Eat or drink some of herbs. I will only take pills to cure some of illness that can't be cured by naturally body recation.

Oddly enough, that I am considering to become a Pharmacist.
 
Taylor said:
I agree! I trust the older drugs that have been around for awhile. As for new stuff, they have to put those disclaimers on their for legal reasons ('You never told me that it was cause me to go limp')
My favorite is for a mens enhancement (can't remember if its for Cialis or Levitra) that says 'Men suffering from erections lasting 6 hours or longer should seek immediate medical help). First, I'd hate to have to make that 911 call for an ambulance...secondly, if erections in my house last 6 hours or longer, you can bet your butt there's gonna be a party ;)

Another favorite disclaimer is for weight-loss pills. 'This drug only works in conjuction with proper diet and regular excercise'. If I had a proper diet with regular excercise, I wouldn't need their weight-loss pill, now would I?


Another favorite disclaimer is for weight-loss pills. 'This drug only works in conjuction with proper diet and regular excercise'. <----- :bsflag:

My favorite is for a mens enhancement (can't remember if its for Cialis or Levitra) that says 'Men suffering from erections lasting 6 hours or longer should seek immediate medical help). <----- is this some kind of a joke? :confused:
 
Very depressing news. :(

I took large doses of Aleve, daily, for a couple years to relieve my pain from heel spurs. They were so bad I was using a cane for one year. Since then, the heel spurs are gone but I have been taking one Aleve daily to maintain my condition. I also used them to relieve the pain from my knee problems. After several years of distance running, my knees were developed chondromalacia (ground up knees like hamburger meat). Well, now I can't do that. Sigh, what next?

My hubby is allergic to aspirin so he can't use the daily aspirin for heart attack prevention.

Drugs are good, drugs are bad, what to do?

It is like some women say about men. You can't live with them, and you can't live without them. ;) (Men say that about women, too.)
 
Reba said:
Very depressing news. :(

I took large doses of Aleve, daily, for a couple years to relieve my pain from heel spurs. They were so bad I was using a cane for one year. Since then, the heel spurs are gone but I have been taking one Aleve daily to maintain my condition. I also used them to relieve the pain from my knee problems. After several years of distance running, my knees were developed chondromalacia (ground up knees like hamburger meat). Well, now I can't do that. Sigh, what next?

My hubby is allergic to aspirin so he can't use the daily aspirin for heart attack prevention.

Drugs are good, drugs are bad, what to do?

It is like some women say about men. You can't live with them, and you can't live without them. ;) (Men say that about women, too.)
Actually, taking asprin daily isn't a good idea. Sure, it helps reduce heart attacks. However, if you decided to stop... you would very likely suffer a heart attack within a couple of weeks. This is usually for those who have been taking asprin daily for many years.
 
Back
Top