THe FDA said this? What a joke. Type in fda and drug company money and wonder why Vioxx is back on the market or why ever other country bans dangerous drugs that we still sell. We are a highly capitalistic society and money doesn't talk it screams to our government bodies and politicians.
Look up Daniel E. Troy, chief counsel in the FDA appointed by Bush, was infamous for suing the FDA in defense of various co's to promote off label use,Troy held private meetings with drug manufacturers after heading the FDA. Troy stalled the FDA's investigation of ephedra, despite its link to at least 100 deaths. Troy also sided with the citrus juice industry on new rules to rid fruit juice of contaminants like E. coli.
When he was not yet appointed to the FDA, Attorney W. Daniel E. Troy defeated the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) effort to regulate tobacco advertising when he defended Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Troy won against the FDA again in 1998, so drug companies can provide doctors with information about "off-label" uses of prescription drugs.
He sided with lobbyists from Fashion Wear Services, a company making decorative contact lenses, allowing the lenses to be regulated as cosmetics instead of as medical devices. Safety advocates criticized Troy's decision because a 15-year-old girl lost sight in one eye from inserting a tinted lens with no professional instruction. Four months later, the FDA reconsidered and banned the import of the lenses citing public health concerns.
Now, under his rule, the FDA decreased enforcement actions against drug companies. Between January 1999 and December 2001, the FDA sent 90 enforcement letters a year to drug companies using misleading advertising.
That number dropped to 30 last year, following a change in FDA policy requiring all enforcement letters to win Troy's approval.
Well, I can see this has stirred a debate which I had not intended.
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
Well, I can see this has stirred a debate which I had not intended.
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
Great post Barb! I think good intentioned posts like yours gets misinterpreted as attack, causing defensiveness when all you are doing is presenting another side of the information out there and making people think....
Okay, here's something I'd like to discuss. A couple of you have expressed disgust that Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) are back on the market in the US. Since those drugs have come under scrutiny, I've seen countless elderly patients in *a*g*o*n*y* because their arthritis is now essentially untreated. At our age, you have no conception of how agonizing and debilitating arthritis can be. Without that class of drug and Aleve (which is also now considered to be more dangerous), their choices are 1) Tylenol which is ineffective 2)Aspirin with its risks (do you have any idea how many people die each year from GI bleeds?) and 3) prescription narcotic pain relievers.
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
[QUOTE=index.html]Okay, here's something I'd like to discuss. A couple of you have expressed disgust that Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) are back on the market in the US. Since those drugs have come under scrutiny, I've seen countless elderly patients in *a*g*o*n*y* because their arthritis is now essentially untreated. At our age, you have no conception of how agonizing and debilitating arthritis can be. Without that class of drug and Aleve (which is also now considered to be more dangerous), their choices are 1) Tylenol which is ineffective 2)Aspirin with its risks (do you have any idea how many people die each year from GI bleeds?) and 3) prescription narcotic pain relievers.
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
I don't think we can say Cox-2's are less risky....although you are right about aspirin, some people take it for years without problem, especially now with the coated version plus most people will have food with it.
I heard comedian Bill Maher (of the old Politically Correct Show) say one time something about that T.V. advertising. He said they tell you to ask your doctor....but isn't your doctor supposed to be telling you? Doesn't he know if you need it? If you are asking your doctor for this pill and he gives it to you, isn't he then just your pusher? :D
Jeanene Garafolo the comedianne was also listing the side effects of Paxil they mentioned on the commercials for the treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder...dizziness, sweating, anxiety, tremor insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, sexual side effects, gas and vomiting ...she said yeah, exactly the kind of things she wants to have in social situations... :eek:
If Amphetamines are safe, so are aspirin & tylenol, etc, right??? As long as those are not "abused", they are perfectly "safe", however, it seems people exclaim how dangerous those things are, killing everyone.... yet they are not CI like LSD and Roofies either... Vioxx , Xanax, Vicodin and such is considered safe too when not abused; however, those have been also demonstrating that theraputic levels are still dangerous, not just abuse levels.
If Adderall is really so safe, what's all the fuss over there in Canada then???
ftlmatt, I know more than you think, been studying psychoactive substances for a long time...but you do not have to listen to me at all, that's your choice as I mentioned before. Adderall is causing all sorts of cardiovascular problems, why you can even see them on this very board in some posts.
But good luck anyway, hopefully good health will remain with you.
Just to let ya guys know I'm from Canada, all my familyis.
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
Just to let ya guys know I'm from Canada, all my familyis.
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
