I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
first
first
second?
second?
And Celebrex?
And Celebrex?
Cleaning house, came across several samples of Vioxx, plus the lionizing product inserts. (shudder) I obviously need to clean more often.
Cleaning house, came across several samples of Vioxx, plus the lionizing product inserts. (shudder) I obviously need to clean more often.
Greed. Everything wrong with this world is all due to greed.
.
Greed. Everything wrong with this world is all due to greed.
.
Jen...amen and what not. I feel that you can link so many of our peoblems to greed. I also would like to compare the republicans to an eating disorder run rampant...they realize that they cannot control their lives so why not control someone else's.
Jen...amen and what not. I feel that you can link so many of our peoblems to greed. I also would like to compare the republicans to an eating disorder run rampant...they realize that they cannot control their lives so why not control someone else's.
cannot type apparently...pRoblems (-e)
Given all the bad news out of Iraq today (check out icasualties.org for a long long series of new reports), I thought I'd offer this Brodsky poem, written about Bosnia but appropriate for Fallujah:
As you pour yourself a scotch,
crush a roach or check your watch,
as your hand adjusts your tie,
people die.
cannot type apparently...pRoblems (-e)
Given all the bad news out of Iraq today (check out icasualties.org for a long long series of new reports), I thought I'd offer this Brodsky poem, written about Bosnia but appropriate for Fallujah:
As you pour yourself a scotch,
crush a roach or check your watch,
as your hand adjusts your tie,
people die.
Thank you, Atrios, for starting a new thread. I love the book thread, but it's too long . . . . Vioxx works, too bad about the, uh, rare but fatal (for some) side effects. Very interesting story. It could be the downfall of Merck, which actually is pretty good, as Big Pharma goes.
Thank you, Atrios, for starting a new thread. I love the book thread, but it's too long . . . . Vioxx works, too bad about the, uh, rare but fatal (for some) side effects. Very interesting story. It could be the downfall of Merck, which actually is pretty good, as Big Pharma goes.
curses, haloscan: here's the brodsky poem again:
As you pour yourself a scotch,
crush a roach, or check your watch,
as your hand adjusts your tie,
people die.
In the towns with funny names,
hit by bullets, caught in flames,
by and large not knowing why,
people die.
In small places you don't know
of, yet big for having no
chance to scream or say good-bye,
people die.
People die as you elect
new apostles of neglect,
self-restraint, etc. - whereby
people die.
Too far off to practice love
for thy neighbor/brother Slav,
where your cherubs dread to fly,
people die.
While the statues disagree,
Cain's version, history
for its fuel tends to buy
those who die.
As you watch the athletes score,
check your latest statement, or
sing your child a lullaby,
people die.
Timee, whose sharp blood-thirsty quill
parts the killed from those who kill,
will pronounce the latter tribe
as your tribe.
curses, haloscan: here's the brodsky poem again:
As you pour yourself a scotch,
crush a roach, or check your watch,
as your hand adjusts your tie,
people die.
In the towns with funny names,
hit by bullets, caught in flames,
by and large not knowing why,
people die.
In small places you don't know
of, yet big for having no
chance to scream or say good-bye,
people die.
People die as you elect
new apostles of neglect,
self-restraint, etc. - whereby
people die.
Too far off to practice love
for thy neighbor/brother Slav,
where your cherubs dread to fly,
people die.
While the statues disagree,
Cain's version, history
for its fuel tends to buy
those who die.
As you watch the athletes score,
check your latest statement, or
sing your child a lullaby,
people die.
Timee, whose sharp blood-thirsty quill
parts the killed from those who kill,
will pronounce the latter tribe
as your tribe.
There's a Daily Kos diary going on this crap too.
Pam's House Blend
There's a Daily Kos diary going on this crap too.
Pam's House Blend
editoress...good, sad, appropriate. and they call themselves pro-life!???!
editoress...good, sad, appropriate. and they call themselves pro-life!???!
Hey, while I have your attention at the top of this thread...I took the liberty of going through the "fix the DNC" thread from the other day and pulling out the best ideas and throwing them on my blog, with full credit, of course. I thought it would be useful, and my resident troll hates it, so there must be something good in it.
Now I'm going back down to the book thread.
Hey, while I have your attention at the top of this thread...I took the liberty of going through the "fix the DNC" thread from the other day and pulling out the best ideas and throwing them on my blog, with full credit, of course. I thought it would be useful, and my resident troll hates it, so there must be something good in it.
Now I'm going back down to the book thread.
From Theocracywatch -
"...memo (Pat) Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus: "How to Participate in a Political Party"
Rule the world for God.
Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Hide your strength.
Don't flaunt your Christianity.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."
Beware of false gods.
From Theocracywatch -
"...memo (Pat) Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus: "How to Participate in a Political Party"
Rule the world for God.
Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Hide your strength.
Don't flaunt your Christianity.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."
Beware of false gods.
In the future, remind me not to take drugs with a double x in the name.
In the future, remind me not to take drugs with a double x in the name.
Buh buh buh but de-regulation is the ONLY way to let Free Market Capitalism benefit us all!
ERK *my heart* thud.
Buh buh buh but de-regulation is the ONLY way to let Free Market Capitalism benefit us all!
ERK *my heart* thud.
OT: an interesting observation by Juan Cole:
On a lighter note, it is hard to avoid observing that al-Baghdadi castigated Bush's administration as "fundamentalist" and "right-wing." When even the Sunni Salafis of Mosul consider you too fundamentalist and right-wing, you have probably gone too far.
OT: an interesting observation by Juan Cole:
On a lighter note, it is hard to avoid observing that al-Baghdadi castigated Bush's administration as "fundamentalist" and "right-wing." When even the Sunni Salafis of Mosul consider you too fundamentalist and right-wing, you have probably gone too far.
onto the topic of vioxx and others...i do not mean to sound indignant of modern medicine but what do peopel expect when the regulatory agencies are letting the phar. companies run their own test and present their own data as to why it should be put on the market. why would they try to find out if it is dangerous and whatnot. and why would we take something that has just recently been developed...even if it does not have immediate effects on people taking it do we know the long-term effects? and i read someone the other day comment on their uncle dying from vioxx and the family not being able to sue b/c the uncle was 65...tort reform at its finest.
onto the topic of vioxx and others...i do not mean to sound indignant of modern medicine but what do peopel expect when the regulatory agencies are letting the phar. companies run their own test and present their own data as to why it should be put on the market. why would they try to find out if it is dangerous and whatnot. and why would we take something that has just recently been developed...even if it does not have immediate effects on people taking it do we know the long-term effects? and i read someone the other day comment on their uncle dying from vioxx and the family not being able to sue b/c the uncle was 65...tort reform at its finest.
Thanks, Biblio, for compiling the information. Our local Dem chair sent out a survey asking for suggestions. I'll send him the list...with full credit of course.
Thanks, Biblio, for compiling the information. Our local Dem chair sent out a survey asking for suggestions. I'll send him the list...with full credit of course.
Another hearty endorsement for the concept of "self-regulation."
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This industry is one of the most heavily regulated out there. What does this have to do with "self-regulation"?
Another hearty endorsement for the concept of "self-regulation."
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This industry is one of the most heavily regulated out there. What does this have to do with "self-regulation"?
Yepper.
Wouldn't want to burden Big Pharma with too much regulation, would we?
[/sarcasm]
Yepper.
Wouldn't want to burden Big Pharma with too much regulation, would we?
[/sarcasm]
OT:
some optical scanner problems in indiana when anyone voted straight dem ticket in franklin county. All votes switched to straight Libertarian instead of dem. The machines were tested before the election and all tested fine.
If you look at the CNN results for indiana and check franklin county, badnarick got 7% of the vote. He got 1% in all other counties in indiana. Kerry wasn't gonna win indiana anyway. Just say'n things aren't right.
Yahoo article:
Computer Glitch Changes Election Result
The erroneous tally was caused when the Fidlar Election Co. scanning system recorded straight-Democratic Party votes as votes for Libertarians in southeastern Indiana's Franklin County.
The recount Thursday pushed Democrat Carroll Lanning from fifth to third in the three-seat commissioners race, while Republican Roy Hall fell to fifth.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news...election_glitch
CNN vote counts for indiana counties(check franklin):
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/
2004...county.000.html
OT:
some optical scanner problems in indiana when anyone voted straight dem ticket in franklin county. All votes switched to straight Libertarian instead of dem. The machines were tested before the election and all tested fine.
If you look at the CNN results for indiana and check franklin county, badnarick got 7% of the vote. He got 1% in all other counties in indiana. Kerry wasn't gonna win indiana anyway. Just say'n things aren't right.
Yahoo article:
Computer Glitch Changes Election Result
The erroneous tally was caused when the Fidlar Election Co. scanning system recorded straight-Democratic Party votes as votes for Libertarians in southeastern Indiana's Franklin County.
The recount Thursday pushed Democrat Carroll Lanning from fifth to third in the three-seat commissioners race, while Republican Roy Hall fell to fifth.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news...election_glitch
CNN vote counts for indiana counties(check franklin):
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/
2004...county.000.html
It has been said that the love of money is the root of all evil. The want of money is so quite as truly. Samuel Butler
I'd always heard it as "Want of money is the root of all evil." Basically the same thing, greed is the thing that makes people do vicious, vile things.
Tow
It has been said that the love of money is the root of all evil. The want of money is so quite as truly. Samuel Butler
I'd always heard it as "Want of money is the root of all evil." Basically the same thing, greed is the thing that makes people do vicious, vile things.
Tow
If you want to know where our FDA stands, with the people or with big pharma, this previous post should shed some light on the subject.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal drug safety adviser said Friday the government rescinded his invitation to participate in a February meeting on the risk of Vioxx and other arthritis drugs because he had already publicly expressed doubts about the medications.
"The reason was that I had expressed my views publicly," said Dr. Curt Furberg, a Wake Forest University School of Medicine professor of public health sciences.
-
The Food and Drug Administration's deputy director of the office of new drugs said it's "very very common" for advisers to be excluded due to conflict of interest concerns.
Who wants Canadian drugs?
If you want to know where our FDA stands, with the people or with big pharma, this previous post should shed some light on the subject.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal drug safety adviser said Friday the government rescinded his invitation to participate in a February meeting on the risk of Vioxx and other arthritis drugs because he had already publicly expressed doubts about the medications.
"The reason was that I had expressed my views publicly," said Dr. Curt Furberg, a Wake Forest University School of Medicine professor of public health sciences.
-
The Food and Drug Administration's deputy director of the office of new drugs said it's "very very common" for advisers to be excluded due to conflict of interest concerns.
Who wants Canadian drugs?
Who owns the Associated Press? The UPI?
Who owns the Associated Press? The UPI?
"At present, there is no compelling marketing need for such a study," said a slide prepared for the meeting. "Data would not be available during the critical period. The implied message is not favorable."
Translation:
"The cost-benefit analysis indicated that the cost to us (possibly millions of dollars) outweighed the benefit to our customers (possibly not being killed by our drugs)."
"At present, there is no compelling marketing need for such a study," said a slide prepared for the meeting. "Data would not be available during the critical period. The implied message is not favorable."
Translation:
"The cost-benefit analysis indicated that the cost to us (possibly millions of dollars) outweighed the benefit to our customers (possibly not being killed by our drugs)."
First of all, how the heck did a drug that increases the risk of "cardiovascular endpoints" by 3.7-fold make it to market??? This isn't something exceedingly rare. One of the primary effects of prostaglandin inhibitors is on blood clotting. You'd think they'd look at this. It is very tempting to suspect that Diebold counted adverse effects for the FDA approval data. I'm sure Merck knew it had a multi-billion dollar winner.
Also, as far as Merck voluntarily recalling Vioxx, I have to say pffft! They were probably given a most generous option to withdraw it by the FDA. It was voluntary in the same way that lots of people fired from a job ostensibly resign voluntarily.
First of all, how the heck did a drug that increases the risk of "cardiovascular endpoints" by 3.7-fold make it to market??? This isn't something exceedingly rare. One of the primary effects of prostaglandin inhibitors is on blood clotting. You'd think they'd look at this. It is very tempting to suspect that Diebold counted adverse effects for the FDA approval data. I'm sure Merck knew it had a multi-billion dollar winner.
Also, as far as Merck voluntarily recalling Vioxx, I have to say pffft! They were probably given a most generous option to withdraw it by the FDA. It was voluntary in the same way that lots of people fired from a job ostensibly resign voluntarily.
ziggy,
You are EXACTLY on the mark. They do the studies, and then bury the results that don't benefit their product. It's the definition of junk science. Clear and simple, and yet it's been allowed to flourish in our oh-so-vibrant culture of free markets.
That's why so much of the real science has moved overseas where it is unsullied by profit.
They seem to have forgotten the maxim of "first do no harm," also.
ziggy,
You are EXACTLY on the mark. They do the studies, and then bury the results that don't benefit their product. It's the definition of junk science. Clear and simple, and yet it's been allowed to flourish in our oh-so-vibrant culture of free markets.
That's why so much of the real science has moved overseas where it is unsullied by profit.
They seem to have forgotten the maxim of "first do no harm," also.
stinky feet..."we have to make sure these drugs do not kill you" where are the dead canadians??? can we not mark this in our notes for things to make campaign ads in '06 and '08 and for as long as it takes? my g-ma was perscribed it and the ONLY reason she did not take it is b/c my GREEDY republican doctor for a sister told her NOT TO....they KNEW!
stinky feet..."we have to make sure these drugs do not kill you" where are the dead canadians??? can we not mark this in our notes for things to make campaign ads in '06 and '08 and for as long as it takes? my g-ma was perscribed it and the ONLY reason she did not take it is b/c my GREEDY republican doctor for a sister told her NOT TO....they KNEW!
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This industry is one of the most heavily regulated out there. What does this have to do with "self-regulation"?
Dave in NYC
Well, Dave in NYC, let me try to connect the dots for you.
Dot 1.) Merck knew there was a study that showed six times as many heart attacks and strokes as a competitor drug, yet still decided not to investigate their product further.
Dot 2.) One of the overriding policies/ideologies of the Republicans is deregulation and self-policing. i.e. Get the government out of the equation and let big businesses do what is right for the public by their own volition. The republicans believe that big business can be trusted to do what is right.
If not required to by the government, do you suppose Merck would be collecting billions in sales or would they voluntarily remove Vioxx from the market?
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. This industry is one of the most heavily regulated out there. What does this have to do with "self-regulation"?
Dave in NYC
Well, Dave in NYC, let me try to connect the dots for you.
Dot 1.) Merck knew there was a study that showed six times as many heart attacks and strokes as a competitor drug, yet still decided not to investigate their product further.
Dot 2.) One of the overriding policies/ideologies of the Republicans is deregulation and self-policing. i.e. Get the government out of the equation and let big businesses do what is right for the public by their own volition. The republicans believe that big business can be trusted to do what is right.
If not required to by the government, do you suppose Merck would be collecting billions in sales or would they voluntarily remove Vioxx from the market?
worstpills.org had a warning about vioxx 2 or 3 years ago.
worstpills.org had a warning about vioxx 2 or 3 years ago.
I had a doctor who wanted to give me Phen-fen back in those days. I turned it down as a feminist. (I'm short, but buxom, so I never really fit on the charts.) It was maybe six months later that the problems showed up with that drug.
I had a doctor who wanted to give me Phen-fen back in those days. I turned it down as a feminist. (I'm short, but buxom, so I never really fit on the charts.) It was maybe six months later that the problems showed up with that drug.
There are thousands of drugs that have negative studies that if confirmed one day could be used to charge that the drug company 'knew'.
There are thousands of drugs that have negative studies that if confirmed one day could be used to charge that the drug company 'knew'.
NYMary, I don't really understand why you turned phen-fen down as a feminist. You mean you didn't buy into the need to make yourself model-thin; you believe it sexist to focus so much on appearance?
I'd buy that, but there are health issues from obesity as well. (not saying anything about you personally, since I don't know you.)
NYMary, I don't really understand why you turned phen-fen down as a feminist. You mean you didn't buy into the need to make yourself model-thin; you believe it sexist to focus so much on appearance?
I'd buy that, but there are health issues from obesity as well. (not saying anything about you personally, since I don't know you.)
anon: are you saying that it is ok to ignore these reports and forgive the pharma's for doing so?
anon: are you saying that it is ok to ignore these reports and forgive the pharma's for doing so?
I was involved in a drug study - I was not getting the desired results (i.e. the drug was not having the effect that the company was claiming). On top of that I was having several negative side effects. Instead of finishing the study, they terminated my participation several weeks early, so that they did not have to include my case in their final results.
What's my point? Well, it's a good bet that I was not a solitary and isolated case. It's much more likely that the modus operandi for this test was just as they treated me. That is, that they simply stopped the test early for those subjects not matching the preset criteria for positive results or for those experiencing too many side effects. This, of course, makes the drug seem more effective than it is, with fewer side effects than it actually causes. Furthermore, by suppressing a portion of the results, it could make the entire test worthless, allowing a drug on the market that is, at best, no better than a placebo, and, at worst, highly dangerous.
So, don't expect Vioxx to be the last deadly drug you hear about.
I was involved in a drug study - I was not getting the desired results (i.e. the drug was not having the effect that the company was claiming). On top of that I was having several negative side effects. Instead of finishing the study, they terminated my participation several weeks early, so that they did not have to include my case in their final results.
What's my point? Well, it's a good bet that I was not a solitary and isolated case. It's much more likely that the modus operandi for this test was just as they treated me. That is, that they simply stopped the test early for those subjects not matching the preset criteria for positive results or for those experiencing too many side effects. This, of course, makes the drug seem more effective than it is, with fewer side effects than it actually causes. Furthermore, by suppressing a portion of the results, it could make the entire test worthless, allowing a drug on the market that is, at best, no better than a placebo, and, at worst, highly dangerous.
So, don't expect Vioxx to be the last deadly drug you hear about.
I was on Vioxx for 3 days. I ripped through my system like you wouldn't believe. My Rheumatologist put me on Celebrex, and I was on that for about 2 weeks. Then I went to Bextra - which is known in the circles as Celebrex X-4. It's 4 times the strength of normal Celebrex.
The current argument that Vioxx and Celebrex are the 'same' is incorrect. True they are both Cox-2 inhibitors, they are starkly different in composition.
I have done my research before filling any prescription given to beby any one of the Doctor's I see. If I find information that doesn't jive and I'm not comfortable with I'm on the phone, if not in their office in their face with it.
Fact of the matter is - too many people take Doctor's at their word when being prescribed medications for ailments. Cover your own ass. The life you save may well be your own, and someone elses.
Another good piece of advise - NEVER search for drug side effects on the maker's sites. The information is always skewed. Use a second or third party site - John's Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, are 2 really trustworthy places to investigate medications.
As with anything - find a couple sets of information to substantiate what you are looking at before you take it to heart as truth. Then remain skeptical. The entire truth is not always out 'here'.
I was on Vioxx for 3 days. I ripped through my system like you wouldn't believe. My Rheumatologist put me on Celebrex, and I was on that for about 2 weeks. Then I went to Bextra - which is known in the circles as Celebrex X-4. It's 4 times the strength of normal Celebrex.
The current argument that Vioxx and Celebrex are the 'same' is incorrect. True they are both Cox-2 inhibitors, they are starkly different in composition.
I have done my research before filling any prescription given to beby any one of the Doctor's I see. If I find information that doesn't jive and I'm not comfortable with I'm on the phone, if not in their office in their face with it.
Fact of the matter is - too many people take Doctor's at their word when being prescribed medications for ailments. Cover your own ass. The life you save may well be your own, and someone elses.
Another good piece of advise - NEVER search for drug side effects on the maker's sites. The information is always skewed. Use a second or third party site - John's Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, are 2 really trustworthy places to investigate medications.
As with anything - find a couple sets of information to substantiate what you are looking at before you take it to heart as truth. Then remain skeptical. The entire truth is not always out 'here'.
the vote machines were being tested, a run through, if you will, double blind testing, placebos and all....w/ the side- effect of puppetman winning
the vote machines were being tested, a run through, if you will, double blind testing, placebos and all....w/ the side- effect of puppetman winning
You folks have no idea what you're talking about.
Vioxx is the only drug of choice for many people who have severe back pain. It's not suppossed to be used as candy, although there are chronic cases where the patient must be on it daily.
Those are the people at risk. Not the people who use it once in awhile for pain.
I know this will affect the righteous, but: this is not a case of greed of fucked up regulation. This is a case where a severe pain drug can cause side effects (duh!) and where many users glasly accept that possibility because they can not stand the pain.
Get your heads out of the ground and realize that lawyers running around signing dozens of people up via 1-800 phone banks will gurantee that those of you with pain will never get another shot at relief.
Christ, when did this board become so friggin' righteous. Oh yeah, it's Sunday!
You folks have no idea what you're talking about.
Vioxx is the only drug of choice for many people who have severe back pain. It's not suppossed to be used as candy, although there are chronic cases where the patient must be on it daily.
Those are the people at risk. Not the people who use it once in awhile for pain.
I know this will affect the righteous, but: this is not a case of greed of fucked up regulation. This is a case where a severe pain drug can cause side effects (duh!) and where many users glasly accept that possibility because they can not stand the pain.
Get your heads out of the ground and realize that lawyers running around signing dozens of people up via 1-800 phone banks will gurantee that those of you with pain will never get another shot at relief.
Christ, when did this board become so friggin' righteous. Oh yeah, it's Sunday!
And you, Sir, are an idiot.
And you, Sir, are an idiot.
"Vioxx is the only drug of choice for many people who have severe back pain. It's not suppossed to be used as candy, although there are chronic cases where the patient must be on it daily."
From what I've read there isn't any evidence that it was more effective than older drugs.
This is what comes from our Supreme Court being so innocent of real life. Many of us expected this kind of development as soon as they issued their ruling on advertising perscription drugs. Let the market prevail and they'll sell you poison, just like in the grubbiest days of the 19th century. Get rid of the advertising of perscription drugs to consumers and the ability of drug companies to block generic versions of older and better tested drugs and lots of these drug disasters might not happen.
Their decision on lawyers advertising is the mirror image of this, though I've never heard of 27,000 people dying because of ambulance chasers on TV.
Economic theory as the primary motivating force in law. Now there's a really scary idea.
"Vioxx is the only drug of choice for many people who have severe back pain. It's not suppossed to be used as candy, although there are chronic cases where the patient must be on it daily."
From what I've read there isn't any evidence that it was more effective than older drugs.
This is what comes from our Supreme Court being so innocent of real life. Many of us expected this kind of development as soon as they issued their ruling on advertising perscription drugs. Let the market prevail and they'll sell you poison, just like in the grubbiest days of the 19th century. Get rid of the advertising of perscription drugs to consumers and the ability of drug companies to block generic versions of older and better tested drugs and lots of these drug disasters might not happen.
Their decision on lawyers advertising is the mirror image of this, though I've never heard of 27,000 people dying because of ambulance chasers on TV.
Economic theory as the primary motivating force in law. Now there's a really scary idea.
FWIW, a student of mine has dropped out of school because she can no longer get Vioxx. I don't know what to make of that, or whether it supports or refutes Luigi's case, I'm just mentioning in. My understanding was lihe EPT's, that there were plenty of other drugs that work similarly (it's just Aleve on steriods, no?) but are no longer "new".
And yes, to jsg @ 1:01, I did and do feel that our culture's absession with slenderness is a serious problem. I was not obese at the time, and the doctor acted as though he was doing me a tremendous favor and could not understand why I wasn't interested.
FWIW, a student of mine has dropped out of school because she can no longer get Vioxx. I don't know what to make of that, or whether it supports or refutes Luigi's case, I'm just mentioning in. My understanding was lihe EPT's, that there were plenty of other drugs that work similarly (it's just Aleve on steriods, no?) but are no longer "new".
And yes, to jsg @ 1:01, I did and do feel that our culture's absession with slenderness is a serious problem. I was not obese at the time, and the doctor acted as though he was doing me a tremendous favor and could not understand why I wasn't interested.
Self regulation worked so well for the electric industry in California, too.
Self regulation worked so well for the electric industry in California, too.
Well, I know I was taking 1500mg's of asprin a day before the Vioxx, then Celebrex - then Bextra.
The Bextra has been a mild lifesaver. And, speaking of lifesavers - the Kineret (anakinera) I inject daily for the RA has all but stopped the progression of the joint destruction and rheumatoid flares I used to have about every 3-4 weeks.
As opposed to laying in bed sick as a dog with a 102 fever, my hands and feet swelled to 2-3 times their normal size, writhing in pain - it's quite worth it.
I was the 1173rd person in the trial of Kineret. I have been on it for 2 years in January. Since I have been exposed to TB (thanks to the employment at the State Correctional system), Remicade - and the newer biologics would most likely kill me.
Not on the option list. Let me reiterate what I posted earlier - do your research before you fill your prescriptions. Your Doctor is NOT always right, just because he or she is a Doctor.
Well, I know I was taking 1500mg's of asprin a day before the Vioxx, then Celebrex - then Bextra.
The Bextra has been a mild lifesaver. And, speaking of lifesavers - the Kineret (anakinera) I inject daily for the RA has all but stopped the progression of the joint destruction and rheumatoid flares I used to have about every 3-4 weeks.
As opposed to laying in bed sick as a dog with a 102 fever, my hands and feet swelled to 2-3 times their normal size, writhing in pain - it's quite worth it.
I was the 1173rd person in the trial of Kineret. I have been on it for 2 years in January. Since I have been exposed to TB (thanks to the employment at the State Correctional system), Remicade - and the newer biologics would most likely kill me.
Not on the option list. Let me reiterate what I posted earlier - do your research before you fill your prescriptions. Your Doctor is NOT always right, just because he or she is a Doctor.
Remember in 1996, Bob Dole supported a bill to effectively eliminate all USDA meat inspection, and the the industry police itself? Then came a rash of E-Coli contaminated meat and suddenly he droppoed it. Americans hate government until it fails them.
Remember in 1996, Bob Dole supported a bill to effectively eliminate all USDA meat inspection, and the the industry police itself? Then came a rash of E-Coli contaminated meat and suddenly he droppoed it. Americans hate government until it fails them.
Ownership society fallout.
Pre-Teddy Roosevelt repercussions.
Reckless corporate power.
Why are these people depriving me from making a living?
All I want to do is make drugs to help people and sell them at marketable prices? I just want to live the american dream, nothing else. I don't want a fancy car or a mansion. But if I can afford it from sales of the drugs I make why shouldn't I be able to buy them?
Is it unamerican to make a profit? That is how the country works. Capitalism. Entrepeneurship. Free markets. Non-interference.
It's unamerican for these people to be suing me cause my drugs hurt them. It wasn't my fault. I tried to help them. Why couldn't they look out for themselves? Why couldn't they have taken care of their own health, their own heart safety? I can help where they need it but I can't do it all.
Is some health improvements in one area not worth the risk in others? Maybe if these people exorcized more and weren't taking drugs, drinking booze, etc, they wouldn't have had bad hearts to begin with.
Oh. Did I mention that I'm a christian who hates abortion, liberals, and the French?
MYOB'
.
Ownership society fallout.
Pre-Teddy Roosevelt repercussions.
Reckless corporate power.
Why are these people depriving me from making a living?
All I want to do is make drugs to help people and sell them at marketable prices? I just want to live the american dream, nothing else. I don't want a fancy car or a mansion. But if I can afford it from sales of the drugs I make why shouldn't I be able to buy them?
Is it unamerican to make a profit? That is how the country works. Capitalism. Entrepeneurship. Free markets. Non-interference.
It's unamerican for these people to be suing me cause my drugs hurt them. It wasn't my fault. I tried to help them. Why couldn't they look out for themselves? Why couldn't they have taken care of their own health, their own heart safety? I can help where they need it but I can't do it all.
Is some health improvements in one area not worth the risk in others? Maybe if these people exorcized more and weren't taking drugs, drinking booze, etc, they wouldn't have had bad hearts to begin with.
Oh. Did I mention that I'm a christian who hates abortion, liberals, and the French?
MYOB'
.
jsg -
I think you need to slow down a little bit.
Your dot 1) above is clearly false as it was evidence from further study at Merck that led to the withdrawal of Vioxx.
Secondly, from the article, the company decided to use a clinical trial that was already in progress to monitor for cardiovascular events. I can't think of a good way to get the necessary scientific conclusions any faster.
Thirdly, also from the linked article, any trial solely intended to measure the side effects would be unethical, and thus couldn't be done.
Lastly, again from the article, the FDA was not aware in advance of the decision to withdraw Vioxx, so I don't think you can support your assertion that it was required by the gov't.
jsg -
I think you need to slow down a little bit.
Your dot 1) above is clearly false as it was evidence from further study at Merck that led to the withdrawal of Vioxx.
Secondly, from the article, the company decided to use a clinical trial that was already in progress to monitor for cardiovascular events. I can't think of a good way to get the necessary scientific conclusions any faster.
Thirdly, also from the linked article, any trial solely intended to measure the side effects would be unethical, and thus couldn't be done.
Lastly, again from the article, the FDA was not aware in advance of the decision to withdraw Vioxx, so I don't think you can support your assertion that it was required by the gov't.
I vaguely recall that there were also studies done that showed that Celebrex and Vioxx were no more effective than ibuprofen. The difference being that you can't make a several billion dollars selling ibuprofen.
Anyway, see the free market worked! Okay, so a few people die. That's the Invisible Hand at work. Now those consumers... okay not them... the remaining consumers can CHOOSE to get their drugs from another pharmaceutical company. Just like food poisoning from bad meat. After the carnage (no pun intended) the survivors can just choose meat from a different meat packing plant. See? Who needs regulation?
It's the same with government. You find out that the government you have is a just a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, incompetent, lying weasels, you can choose... Well...um...
I vaguely recall that there were also studies done that showed that Celebrex and Vioxx were no more effective than ibuprofen. The difference being that you can't make a several billion dollars selling ibuprofen.
Anyway, see the free market worked! Okay, so a few people die. That's the Invisible Hand at work. Now those consumers... okay not them... the remaining consumers can CHOOSE to get their drugs from another pharmaceutical company. Just like food poisoning from bad meat. After the carnage (no pun intended) the survivors can just choose meat from a different meat packing plant. See? Who needs regulation?
It's the same with government. You find out that the government you have is a just a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, incompetent, lying weasels, you can choose... Well...um...
I don't understand some of the trolls....okay, Bushies...who appear on the Atrios boards.
They come in here like gloating little kids saying "we won."
Who's "we" - what are they, royalty? Or just schizophrenic?
They all seem to have this attitude of "how dare you not surrender your free will and bow down to King George"?
Well, sorry -- I don't like the SOB, I didn't vote for him, and I don't have to support him. He is NOT synonymous with America and I don't have to like him to love America.
If that's too much for you to get your little minds around, oh well......
Yes, they call US unAmerican and then tell US we should leave the country, ad nauseam. As if these little nobodies who live vicariously through Monkey Boy and the GOP, have the power to decide who belongs in this country and who doesn't.
I pay my bills and the taxes (that support most of those in the red states) and I am law-abiding. I'm not going anywhere.
What are these wankers trying to act like bad-asses going to do about that?
Do these people think they're going to MAKE me go to church? I work a full-time job; my weekends are MINE!
I'll bet most of these "value" folks in Cracker Nation don't go to church (they're too busy sleeping off Saturday's night's drinking binge).
I have three ancestors who were Mayflower passengers. I believe they left England to FIND freedom. I don't intend to just allow some pack of nuts to TAKE that freedom away from ME!
Don't tell me what I should or should not believe. If I choose not to believe any of it, that's my choice.
And don't go talking about freedom and being a real American if you can't respect OUR right NOT to like YOUR president!
I don't understand some of the trolls....okay, Bushies...who appear on the Atrios boards.
They come in here like gloating little kids saying "we won."
Who's "we" - what are they, royalty? Or just schizophrenic?
They all seem to have this attitude of "how dare you not surrender your free will and bow down to King George"?
Well, sorry -- I don't like the SOB, I didn't vote for him, and I don't have to support him. He is NOT synonymous with America and I don't have to like him to love America.
If that's too much for you to get your little minds around, oh well......
Yes, they call US unAmerican and then tell US we should leave the country, ad nauseam. As if these little nobodies who live vicariously through Monkey Boy and the GOP, have the power to decide who belongs in this country and who doesn't.
I pay my bills and the taxes (that support most of those in the red states) and I am law-abiding. I'm not going anywhere.
What are these wankers trying to act like bad-asses going to do about that?
Do these people think they're going to MAKE me go to church? I work a full-time job; my weekends are MINE!
I'll bet most of these "value" folks in Cracker Nation don't go to church (they're too busy sleeping off Saturday's night's drinking binge).
I have three ancestors who were Mayflower passengers. I believe they left England to FIND freedom. I don't intend to just allow some pack of nuts to TAKE that freedom away from ME!
Don't tell me what I should or should not believe. If I choose not to believe any of it, that's my choice.
And don't go talking about freedom and being a real American if you can't respect OUR right NOT to like YOUR president!
This is great. One of the old canards about our "enemy of the day" is that "they don't respect human life". Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us. Cost-benefit analysis, how many dead vs. how many successful lawsuits. specifically because these monsters do want to live in mansions, vacation in exotic locales, and show off their latest trinkets. Not unlike the repigs that have stolen our government and country out from under us. Of course, in the end, they always lose, but the cost is always very high, and usually in our lives.
This is great. One of the old canards about our "enemy of the day" is that "they don't respect human life". Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us. Cost-benefit analysis, how many dead vs. how many successful lawsuits. specifically because these monsters do want to live in mansions, vacation in exotic locales, and show off their latest trinkets. Not unlike the repigs that have stolen our government and country out from under us. Of course, in the end, they always lose, but the cost is always very high, and usually in our lives.
See, self-regulation works just fine. The problem lies in that people are allowed to sue about these things and walk with millions just because they had a stroke.
It's called caveat emptor, and I don't care how dangerous a drug is, that's no reason not to provide it to people who *are taking the risk for any degree of danger upon themselves by consuming the product*. Caveat emptor.
It's like when you consume food or any other product. You're taking the risk that it's full of bacteria or has potential to electrocute you when you use it. Caveat emptor, motherfuckers, is what democracy is all about. Regulation is for sissies who want to buy their hamburgers without being brave enough to chance the consequences.
Now, while it's sensible to extend caveat emptor more universally, I think y'all will be too busy misinterpreting the Constitution and buzzwords of your kind to comprehend the message.
Caveat emptor. No one is responsible for what you buy or use except you, and no one is responsible for holding your hand and telling you whether you should be scared of boogeymen or heart attacks or pneumonia.
See, self-regulation works just fine. The problem lies in that people are allowed to sue about these things and walk with millions just because they had a stroke.
It's called caveat emptor, and I don't care how dangerous a drug is, that's no reason not to provide it to people who *are taking the risk for any degree of danger upon themselves by consuming the product*. Caveat emptor.
It's like when you consume food or any other product. You're taking the risk that it's full of bacteria or has potential to electrocute you when you use it. Caveat emptor, motherfuckers, is what democracy is all about. Regulation is for sissies who want to buy their hamburgers without being brave enough to chance the consequences.
Now, while it's sensible to extend caveat emptor more universally, I think y'all will be too busy misinterpreting the Constitution and buzzwords of your kind to comprehend the message.
Caveat emptor. No one is responsible for what you buy or use except you, and no one is responsible for holding your hand and telling you whether you should be scared of boogeymen or heart attacks or pneumonia.
It's called caveat emptor
Which might be fine, except the drug company in this case did not fully disclose this risk to the public, even though they knew about it, and the people who were prescribed this drug by their doctors had no idea that there was this much risk involved.
When a corporation misbehaves in this fashion, what is the libertarian solution? To give them a stern warning? A spanking?
People have to have a legal recourse to punish these companies that knowingly and recklessly endanger the public. People have to have a peaceful method for dealing with this problem.
If there are no laws to punish these companies, and people aren't allowed to sue them, you will leave no options other than violent retribution.
It's called caveat emptor
Which might be fine, except the drug company in this case did not fully disclose this risk to the public, even though they knew about it, and the people who were prescribed this drug by their doctors had no idea that there was this much risk involved.
When a corporation misbehaves in this fashion, what is the libertarian solution? To give them a stern warning? A spanking?
People have to have a legal recourse to punish these companies that knowingly and recklessly endanger the public. People have to have a peaceful method for dealing with this problem.
If there are no laws to punish these companies, and people aren't allowed to sue them, you will leave no options other than violent retribution.
"When a corporation misbehaves in this fashion, what is the libertarian solution? To give them a stern warning? A spanking?"
Call their broker and tell him to buy.
"When a corporation misbehaves in this fashion, what is the libertarian solution? To give them a stern warning? A spanking?"
Call their broker and tell him to buy.
Anybody who bothered to do even a minimal amount of research knew years ago that Vioxx was bad stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/4ogvh
Anybody who bothered to do even a minimal amount of research knew years ago that Vioxx was bad stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/4ogvh
But gee, the CEO of Merck printed a nice apologetic ad in the New York Times, saying what a good corporate citizen it is, sorry about all the dead people. So I feel a lot better.
But gee, the CEO of Merck printed a nice apologetic ad in the New York Times, saying what a good corporate citizen it is, sorry about all the dead people. So I feel a lot better.
Your dot 1) above is clearly false as it was evidence from further study at Merck that led to the withdrawal of Vioxx.
If you read the first sentence in the article, you will see that it is not false. They had a meeting to decide whether to pursue a study and they chose not to. As for it being Merck's data that eventually led to a recall, you are correct. Fortunately, there were some in the company that would not take no for an answer and they convinced the company to look at cardiovascular events.
Not all drug company scientists and execs are interested in money over health. Take the guy from Pfizer that testified before Congressthat Canadian drugs are just as safe as American drugs against the wishes of his company.
But make no mistake. There were marketing types in the company that wanted the toxicity of Vioxx to remain an unknown. So yes, the system worked this time, but it just as easily could have failed.
Thirdly, also from the linked article, any trial solely intended to measure the side effects would be unethical, and thus couldn't be done.
This is what is known as a strawman argument. Point out a particular kind of trial that can't be done and imply that no trial could be devised to find out what we need to know. Trials could be devised, just not ones without a benefit to patients.
Lastly, again from the article, the FDA was not aware in advance of the decision to withdraw Vioxx, so I don't think you can support your assertion that it was required by the gov't.
This is really what amazes me about this article. This woman, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director in the F.D.A., comes off as truly shameless. She says of the initial damning Vigor data, "We just didn't buy that." But then she says of the newer study proving the link, "That's nothing new. We knew that from Vigor." WTF! My guess is that she's either a political appointee or an ex-big pharma insider. Not a scientist at heart, I'll tell you that.
There are two mechanisms in place now to prevent dangerous drugs from the marketplace. The first is government regulation. The second is litigation. Republicans and Libertarians want to take away both.
I'm sure they'll point out two other mechanisms to prevent dangerous drugs from the marketplace. One, ethics; and two, the 'just don't buy them' argument. For the first one, the primary responsibility of the company is to its shareholders. When billions are at stake, a few heart attacks are nothing. For the second one, without the FDA, the studies never would have been done; the toxicity would have remained unknown; and we would not be able to make informed decisions. That to me is not acceptable.
Your dot 1) above is clearly false as it was evidence from further study at Merck that led to the withdrawal of Vioxx.
If you read the first sentence in the article, you will see that it is not false. They had a meeting to decide whether to pursue a study and they chose not to. As for it being Merck's data that eventually led to a recall, you are correct. Fortunately, there were some in the company that would not take no for an answer and they convinced the company to look at cardiovascular events.
Not all drug company scientists and execs are interested in money over health. Take the guy from Pfizer that testified before Congressthat Canadian drugs are just as safe as American drugs against the wishes of his company.
But make no mistake. There were marketing types in the company that wanted the toxicity of Vioxx to remain an unknown. So yes, the system worked this time, but it just as easily could have failed.
Thirdly, also from the linked article, any trial solely intended to measure the side effects would be unethical, and thus couldn't be done.
This is what is known as a strawman argument. Point out a particular kind of trial that can't be done and imply that no trial could be devised to find out what we need to know. Trials could be devised, just not ones without a benefit to patients.
Lastly, again from the article, the FDA was not aware in advance of the decision to withdraw Vioxx, so I don't think you can support your assertion that it was required by the gov't.
This is really what amazes me about this article. This woman, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director in the F.D.A., comes off as truly shameless. She says of the initial damning Vigor data, "We just didn't buy that." But then she says of the newer study proving the link, "That's nothing new. We knew that from Vigor." WTF! My guess is that she's either a political appointee or an ex-big pharma insider. Not a scientist at heart, I'll tell you that.
There are two mechanisms in place now to prevent dangerous drugs from the marketplace. The first is government regulation. The second is litigation. Republicans and Libertarians want to take away both.
I'm sure they'll point out two other mechanisms to prevent dangerous drugs from the marketplace. One, ethics; and two, the 'just don't buy them' argument. For the first one, the primary responsibility of the company is to its shareholders. When billions are at stake, a few heart attacks are nothing. For the second one, without the FDA, the studies never would have been done; the toxicity would have remained unknown; and we would not be able to make informed decisions. That to me is not acceptable.
It's called caveat emptor, and I don't care how dangerous a drug is, that's no reason not to provide it to people who *are taking the risk for any degree of danger upon themselves by consuming the product*. Caveat emptor.
So I can sell methanol, knowingly as whiskey, and if you drink it and go blind or die, caveat emptor! I can stand over your grave and shout into the hole, "caveat emptor!"
I am really glad you Libertarians are posting here. I like people to be exposed to what kind of political system you are proposing for the USA. It is not a nice system for anyone. It really is feudalism dressed up as egalitarianism.
It's called caveat emptor, and I don't care how dangerous a drug is, that's no reason not to provide it to people who *are taking the risk for any degree of danger upon themselves by consuming the product*. Caveat emptor.
So I can sell methanol, knowingly as whiskey, and if you drink it and go blind or die, caveat emptor! I can stand over your grave and shout into the hole, "caveat emptor!"
I am really glad you Libertarians are posting here. I like people to be exposed to what kind of political system you are proposing for the USA. It is not a nice system for anyone. It really is feudalism dressed up as egalitarianism.
when the regulatory agencies are letting the phar. companies run their own test and present their own data as to why it should be put on the market.
All the drug companies do their own clinical testing (or subcontract it to other laboratories). There's really no alternative.
The problem is not that the drug companies do their own testing but rather that on occasion inconvenient or counterindicatory results are withheld from publication.
Some of the pharmaceutical journals have already moved to require contributors to register their trials before they are begun, so that inconvenient results don't just disappear.
Blanket castigation of the entire industry, or conversion of scientific questions into emotion and paranoia, lead to an environment in which political acumen can trump sound judgment. I'm sure many of you remember how our pal Don Rumsfeld rammed aspartame down our throats.
when the regulatory agencies are letting the phar. companies run their own test and present their own data as to why it should be put on the market.
All the drug companies do their own clinical testing (or subcontract it to other laboratories). There's really no alternative.
The problem is not that the drug companies do their own testing but rather that on occasion inconvenient or counterindicatory results are withheld from publication.
Some of the pharmaceutical journals have already moved to require contributors to register their trials before they are begun, so that inconvenient results don't just disappear.
Blanket castigation of the entire industry, or conversion of scientific questions into emotion and paranoia, lead to an environment in which political acumen can trump sound judgment. I'm sure many of you remember how our pal Don Rumsfeld rammed aspartame down our throats.
My guess is that she's either a political appointee or an ex-big pharma insider. Not a scientist at heart, I'll tell you that.
In order to be qualified to judge the results of clinical testing of new drugs, you have to know something about the clinical testing of new drugs. In other words, you have to have worked for a large pharmaceutical corporation. That should be considered a qualification rather than a disqualification.
I think you must be wildly overestimating the number of people potentially qualified to hold these jobs.
My guess is that she's either a political appointee or an ex-big pharma insider. Not a scientist at heart, I'll tell you that.
In order to be qualified to judge the results of clinical testing of new drugs, you have to know something about the clinical testing of new drugs. In other words, you have to have worked for a large pharmaceutical corporation. That should be considered a qualification rather than a disqualification.
I think you must be wildly overestimating the number of people potentially qualified to hold these jobs.
arena loan quicken arena loan quicken arena loan quicken. student loan money student loan money student loan money.
generic online viagra generic online viagra generic online viagra. buy generic menscripts.com online viagra buy generic menscripts.com online viagra buy generic menscripts.com online viagra.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
