 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Good Riddance to a Bad Drug
"Harvey R. Stone" news:mUsad.4105$q%7.1671@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > > "Katherine Wolfe" > news:ckd63e02db0@enews1.newsguy.com... > >> The article suggested > > more regulation on consumer ads on prescription drugs, my understanding is > > the AMA wants that too, but I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on the > > subject. > > My idea is that people can over think what has taken place. You will > always find people that think that more regulations and bigger government is > the answer to almost any question. I think it's interesting, though, that on this particular question the author of the Times article and the AMA are in agreement about regulation of consumer ads. It used to be that you couldn't run them at all, now you can, so what they're both arguing for is rolling that back to some degree. > > Well, no, I really don't think it's Bush's fault - how do you know that > > insufficient testing has been done until sufficient testing has been done? > > I do not know that sufficient testing was done. I do know how long it went > through the FDA trails and testing by the people that make it and on the > market for years which is usually about all that can be done. I probably should have said how does *one* know, etc. In other words, it was a rhetorical question. I've got to get better at making those more obvious. ;-) > > I was saying that, if more regulation is the answer, don't hold your > > breath, > > And IMO you should be saying,,,, after the problem started to show its > face,,,, why did the FDA not act??? I actually saw an article about that yesterday on CNN, about how one of the FDA's researchers was pressured to cancel a presentation at an epidemiology conference in France about the findings of a study that showed that high doses of Vioxx tripled the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death. This was some weeks before Merck's announcement. The article in question is at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/08/fda.vioxx.worries.ap/index.html > Another question might be,,,, have we given the FDA the chance to find out > their own answers///??? Do you think they can do that or are able to do > that? I am saying that I have my doubts about the last two questions AND > IF I EVEN NEED TO DO ANYTHING but reply to someone that thinks that this is > about politics or can be made to seem so. When it comes to how federal agencies regulate business, it has everything to do about politics, unfortunately. I wish that wasn't true, but it is. Since this whole line of inquiry probably isn't of interest except to a few people, and of express *dis*interest to at least one of us (howdy, firechief!), I'll leave the question here, and let you have the last word. The only thing I've got left to say about this, as a former Vioxx and present Bextra user, is that I'd like a whole lot more clarity on the question of Cox-2 safety, and, come to think of it, on the safety of newly-approved drugs in general. I am on two prescriptions that have come on the market in the last few years, three if you count the Bextra, so this isn't a mere abstract question for me. Katherine
Here's another political cross-post in the support/health groups you can complain about. Path: news2.west.cox.net!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!filt02.cox.net!peer02.cox.net!c ox.net!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!nntp.giganews .com.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nn tp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsg uy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 From: "Katherine Wolfe" Newsgroups: alt.support.arthritis,misc.health.arthritis,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Good Riddance to a Bad Drug OTP Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:08:32 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-519.newsdawg.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Xref: east.cox.net alt.support.arthritis:432553 misc.health.arthritis:119536 misc.health.alternative:388428 X-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:35:05 EDT (news2.west.cox.net) "Harvey R. Stone" news:THhad.3995$q%7.1952@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > > "Katherine Wolfe" > news:ckbrrj0n1q@enews1.newsguy.com... > > > > "Roman Bystrianyk" > > news:4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com... > >> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=300 > >> > >> Eric J. Topol, "Good Riddance to a Bad Drug", New York Times, October > >> 2, 2004, > >> Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02topol.html?oref=login > >> > >> As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country > >> to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need > >> a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do > >> the proper studies and force these companies to stop > >> direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for > >> patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. > > > > Oh boy, good luck getting *that* out of the Bush administration.... > > > > Katherine > > Shallow ideas as a response to a gov. agency that has bogged down with > protecting itself. Its not about administration. It is about what > happens to a gov. agency with time and layer upon layer of bureaucrats. > The same thing has taken place with NASA. The same thing has taken place > with the court system and judges that are not about existing laws but try to > make their own laws with their court. > Vioxx had high hopes for people who could not use a sulfa based drug > but needed a NSAID that did not eat holes in their stomach. It did that > but it also had its own side effects and had to be stopped. Blame the > present administration???? Too easy a reply and not one that will improve > the FDA. Well, Republicans generally and the Bush administration in particular doesn't have much of a history of strengthening regulatory agencies. For ex ample, the USDA had geared up to require stricter Listeria testing at meat packing plants, but the executive order that required it was put on hold by the Bush administration. OHSA was completing regulations requiring testing of people who were regularly in contact with TB patients for TB, but the Bush administration cancelled them. The EPA was investigating dozens of coal-fired power plants for pollution that was illegal under regulations at the time, but the Bush administration eased the regulation, and cancelled the investigation. These actions are a reflection of the philosophy of the administration toward federal regulation in general. John D. Graham, who oversees federal regulation for the Bush White House, said regulations are "a form of unfunded mandate that the federal government imposes on the private sector or on state or local governments." It seems to me to be unlikely that any appreciable action will be taken to stiffen regulations at the FDA by an administration that holds a philosophy that is fundamentally inimical to regulatory interest, and that holds a history of reducing regulations on industry in every agency. I'm not blaming the Bush administration for the Vioxx debacle, however, I am saying that we shouldn't expect to see much action to improve the FDA, if that means they're going to actually increase regulation of drug companies. Katherine
"firechief" news:dBoad.15819$Lo6.5836@fed1read03... > Here's another political cross-post in the support/health groups you can > complain about. Sorry about that firechief - to me the topic of the post, that has strayed a bit but is still about what to do to prevent another Vioxx debacle, is still within the charters of m.h.a and a.s.a - might be a bit off-topic with misc.health.alternative, but no more, certainly, than a lot of conversations there. Sorry about the cross-post, I didn't look at the newsgroup list and assumed I was posting to misc.health.arthritis exclusively. Katherine
If you're sick and tired of the political cross-posting, here's were to complain. Path: news2.west.cox.net!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!filt02.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!c ox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w !spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 From: "Katherine Wolfe" Newsgroups: alt.support.arthritis,misc.health.arthritis,misc.health.alternative Subject: Re: Good Riddance to a Bad Drug Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:39:02 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-789.newsdawg.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Xref: east.cox.net alt.support.arthritis:432537 misc.health.arthritis:119532 misc.health.alternative:388322 X-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:50:14 EDT (news2.west.cox.net) "Roman Bystrianyk" news:4f28e591.0410041627.52c1ebc2@posting.google.com... > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=300 > > Eric J. Topol, "Good Riddance to a Bad Drug", New York Times, October > 2, 2004, > Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02topol.html?oref=login > > As the Vioxx debacle shows, we have a long way to go in this country > to get on track with prescription medications. Most important, we need > a stronger regulatory agency to compel pharmaceutical companies to do > the proper studies and force these companies to stop > direct-to-consumer advertising unless a drug has major benefits for > patients and negligible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Oh boy, good luck getting *that* out of the Bush administration.... Katherine Start « Previous 1 2 Related Discussion: Meat / rheumatoid arthritis (12 posts) Health & Nutrition (1 posts) Health Information and Administration (1 posts) Three-Drug Plan for Glycemic Control (1 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives =?Big5?B?W62rrW646rBUXaZwpvO5QqXOqsW2oq7JtqGxTqhNqXexeqq6pbyo0w==?= Saving Room For Dessert May Help Dieters Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy Health Care Providers HMO Arthritis Symptoms
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
