On Feb. 18, an FDA panel decided that COX-2 drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex should remain on the market, despite the heart concerns.
I don't understand why they would advise this. Has it not already been shown that these drugs pose serious heart risks to users? According to the NY Times's article, the drugs would remain on the market though all advertising would be pulled. The recommendation to leave the drugs on the market came after a narrow passing of Vioxx and Bextra, while fully backing Celebrex to stay available.
Not surprisingly Pfizer and Merck stock gained quite a few points. FDA = crooked? If they all voted to ban the drugs and thereby surely crush the companies' share prices, would the FDA have been affected? (ahem, under the table deals?)
Just weird. :\
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-19 0:11
$$$$$
fda is staffed with ex-drug corporation execs, as well as prospective drug corporation execs....
ie fda = owned
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 0:50
COX-2 inhibitors are the only thing that works for lots of people. Many drugs have serious side effects and hence get a black box warning (like chemotherapy drugs) but they work. Are you going to tell someone to live with horrible pain because a drug may POSSIBLY increase risk of heart disease? You can screen for preconditions that may be aggrivated. Doctors need to just stop willy-nilly writing prescriptions for these drugs, thats all.
PS.
yes the fda is owned. I would say let journals and academics vet the quality of drugs not the fda, but medical journals are full of drug ads...
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 0:57
the only industry larger and more corruptly nepotistic than the pharmaceutical industry is the insurance industry
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 10:32
They're dangerous, but they offer some very useful benefits as well. The way I see it, we ought to leave them on the market, along with appropriate warnings so that informed patients and doctors can make the cost benefit analysis themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 10:51
>>5
i'd buy that if the pharma companiess stopped spending millions on advertising and leave it to the doctors(who are trained) to bring up possible aveneues of medication instead of the patient(who watches tv) to "ask your doctor about XXXXX drug"
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 23:42
Part of the deal to let these drugs back is no advertising to the public.
Oops. Too late.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-22 1:11
>>7
they should stop advertising all prescription drugs..... its so transparently profiteering, throwing medical prudence to the wind and simply hocking a product
i suppose they would stop if they were shamed into it, just the business is so massive... who can blame them for being greedy and trying to actively harvest the public through mass media advertisement