This one bothers me

[papasmerf]

Lawsuits have already begun regarding this drug

 

[pope-of-greenwich]

U.S sales of Actos have risen steadily — hitting $3.4 billion last year — as Avandia's reputation has soured. Global sales of Avandia have fallen from a peak of $3.2 billion in 2006 to $1.2 billion last year.

In the U.S., more than 2.6 million patients filled prescriptions for Avandia last year, and some experts worry that those currently taking the drug may continue using it despite the risk of heart attack.

Wow that is a lot of billions down the drain for Glaxon.

 

[BEER]

Wow that is a lot of billions down the drain for Glaxon.

How about lives :???:

 

[tboy]

See, it is drugs like this that make it difficult to get new (and often) much needed drugs to market. I think just about any medication comes with side effects.

Just look at all the dick pills yet guys take them by the millions?

There is one (not sure of the name) that is reminiscent of the movie "The Fugative" with Harrison Ford that is used during open heart surgery but causes severe liver or kidney problems. not sure if it is still on the market though.....

I guess Glaxo didn't pay off the right people?

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

The thing is that doctors love to prescribe and Joe Public just doesn't ask enough questions to be informed.

Big Pharma then reaps the rewards.

 

[SillyGirl]

I think Glaxo paid off exactly the right people...they got a dangerous drug to market and made millions while people died.

The FDA approval process is obviously suspect, at best...this has happened several times over the last ten years or so. I always ask for the older, more-established drug when I'm getting a prescription.

 

[SillyGirl]

The thing is that doctors love to prescribe and Joe Public just doesn't ask enough questions to be informed.

Big Pharma then reaps the rewards.

Most of Joe Public would also prefer to pop a pill than to eat right and exercise.

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

Most of Joe Public would also prefer to pop a pill than to eat right and exercise.

When your right your right.

Exercising and staying away from the great Canadian diet are asking a little much from the masses don't you know.

 

[LickingGravity]

Most of Joe Public would also prefer to pop a pill than to eat right and exercise.

In some cases maybe but not necesarrily for something like type 2 diabetes. Both my parents have it and its a desease that progresses with age. My father is 70, 5'11" and has a 34" waist which I'm guessing a lot of guys half his age would envy. He was just switched to injecting insulin because the oral meds just stopped working. The injecting is difficult and somewhat dangerous in itself.

My mom's 5'7" and weighs 140ish which isn't bad for 65 and is on Metformin and Junuvia and she could have easily been perscribed something like Avandia. This is the last step before insulin injections. I pretty much have this to look forward to at some point given the genetics.

While it's popular to automatically state that pharmaceutical companies are quite happy to kill people rather as long as they make a profit I think it is erroneous. What should not be forgotten is that diabetes untreated is a far greater killer and without these same companies death rates would be significantly higher.

The question of whether you approve a drug early after a year or two of clinical trials or wait for years and years of testing is a bit of a dilema. In many cases (diabetes, cancer to name two) more people will die by delaying. Someone very close to me is taking clinical trial cancer drugs at Princess Margerat. Patient number 18 after the mice so to speak. This is a last resort after chemo , surgery etc. If they work how long would you wish to delay release to others?

On the other side I also read today since 2001 or 2002 breast cancer rates have declined by 10%. This corresponds with the first revelation of the link between hormone therapy and breast cancer and the subsequent dramatic reduction of use of those drugs.

Not always such an easy answer

 

[Cycleguy007]

It goes as no surprise... my opinion of drug companies has just been further solidified.

 

[SillyGirl]

In some cases maybe but not necesarrily for something like type 2 diabetes. Both my parents have it and its a desease that progresses with age. My father is 70, 5'11" and has a 34" waist which I'm guessing a lot of guys half his age would envy. He was just switched to injecting insulin because the oral meds just stopped working. The injecting is difficult and somewhat dangerous in itself.

My mom's 5'7" and weighs 140ish which isn't bad for 65 and is on Metformin and Junuvia and she could have easily been perscribed something like Avandia. This is the last step before insulin injections. I pretty much have this to look forward to at some point given the genetics.

While it's popular to automatically state that pharmaceutical companies are quite happy to kill people rather as long as they make a profit I think it is erroneous. What should not be forgotten is that diabetes untreated is a far greater killer and without these same companies death rates would be significantly higher.

The question of whether you approve a drug early after a year or two of clinical trials or wait for years and years of testing is a bit of a dilema. In many cases (diabetes, cancer to name two) more people will die by delaying. Someone very close to me is taking clinical trial cancer drugs at Princess Margerat. Patient number 18 after the mice so to speak. This is a last resort after chemo , surgery etc. If they work how long would you wish to delay release to others?

On the other side I also read today since 2001 or 2002 breast cancer rates have declined by 10%. This corresponds with the first revelation of the link between hormone therapy and breast cancer and the subsequent dramatic reduction of use of those drugs.

Not always such an easy answer

I didn't mean to imply that I think all illnesses are the result of life choices, not at all. My mom was the most conscientous person I've ever known about her health, but that didn't stop cancer.

I don't agree that it's erroneous when a company hides data showing their product is dangerous. If I knowingly gave someone a substance likely to injure them, without revealing the risk beforehand, I think that would be considered criminal. The fact that their drug does benefit some people doesn't make it okay for Glaxo to be deceptive.

 

[LickingGravity]

The fact that their drug does benefit some people doesn't make it okay for Glaxo to be deceptive.

If they have been deceptive I agree with you. But they haven't been charged and/or convicted which they should be if they have deliberately deceived the FDA and others. Throw them all in jail after the trial.

But my point was its not always black and white plus I'm leary of convicting anyone based on today's version of journalism which tends to leave out a hell of a lot more information than a GlAXO does.

 

[SillyGirl]

Senate investigators concluded earlier this year that the FDA was informed in 2005 of Avandia's heart risks — two years before it made those risks public. The same investigators concluded GlaxoSmithKline began hiding evidence about Avandia's risks soon after it came on the market.

This was the part of the article to which I was referring. The FDA bears responsibility as well.

 

[tboy]

I think gravity up there says it best:

Is it better to do a 10 yr study on the ultimate risks of a drug while people die of the disease it's supposed to fight?

For example: (not sure the status of it at this point) there was a "wonder" drug that was being developed to fight aids and HIV. Aids patients were dropping like flies and begging to be put on the drug as a trial yet the various drug FDA type ministries etc were saying no, you can't, die while we determine whether it is safe or not....so, they have a drug that might harm you, but at least you'll be alive or the trade off is die of the disease...

I also think insinuating that popping a pill instead of eating right and exercising is a pretty narrow minded view. Take me for instance: genetically, I am prone to high cholesteral. My whole family is. I rarely eat fried foods (think I had something fried last week and then that was the first time in 3 months), everything I eat is low or no fat, yet my cholesteral is still high. When I was first diagnosed I went on a strick diet of rice cakes (aka styrofoam), raisons, fruit only, and NO fat of any kind for 2 months. My LDL dropped by 2 points, and my weight dropped 10 lbs. Sure, I could lower my cholesteral to normal levels, but I'd die of starvation.....

Another example are people who contracted the HIV virus via blood transfusions. I guess they should just roll over and die because it was a lifestyle choice to need blood in the first place?

I did a LOT of work with Eli Lilly, Glaxo and others and my contacts there were in a constant battle to develope new drugs to fight diseases with no side effects. You have to weigh the pros and cons of a drug and make the determination whether you want to die early, or risk the side effects.

I mean, you could choose the "all natural" way of treating the disease: death. It's the second most natural thing we do....

 

[Bubba]

I think gravity up there says it best:

Is it better to do a 10 yr study on the ultimate risks of a drug while people die of the disease it's supposed to fight?

For example: (not sure the status of it at this point) there was a "wonder" drug that was being developed to fight aids and HIV. Aids patients were dropping like flies and begging to be put on the drug as a trial yet the various drug FDA type ministries etc were saying no, you can't, die while we determine whether it is safe or not....so, they have a drug that might harm you, but at least you'll be alive or the trade off is die of the disease...

I also think insinuating that popping a pill instead of eating right and exercising is a pretty narrow minded view. Take me for instance: genetically, I am prone to high cholesteral. My whole family is. I rarely eat fried foods (think I had something fried last week and then that was the first time in 3 months), everything I eat is low or no fat, yet my cholesteral is still high. When I was first diagnosed I went on a strick diet of rice cakes (aka styrofoam), raisons, fruit only, and NO fat of any kind for 2 months. My LDL dropped by 2 points, and my weight dropped 10 lbs. Sure, I could lower my cholesteral to normal levels, but I'd die of starvation.....

Another example are people who contracted the HIV virus via blood transfusions. I guess they should just roll over and die because it was a lifestyle choice to need blood in the first place?

I did a LOT of work with Eli Lilly, Glaxo and others and my contacts there were in a constant battle to develope new drugs to fight diseases with no side effects. You have to weigh the pros and cons of a drug and make the determination whether you want to die early, or risk the side effects.

I mean, you could choose the "all natural" way of treating the disease: death. It's the second most natural thing we do....

Thisyou get this from the Internet? :???:. Sorry papa, a low blow. We still love you :tongue:

 

[LickingGravity]

This was the part of the article to which I was referring. The FDA bears responsibility as well.

If they weren't hiding it from the FDA who were they hiding it from? Again, you may very well be right but without reading the source document myself( senate hearings transcripts) I'm still relying on a reporter so while it raises alarm bells I'm not quite ready to hang anyone yet. I will never take this drug though.

Since 2007 Health Canada has said this drug shouldn't be taken unless a patient can't tolerate any other. This sounds to me as if the info has been readily available for quite a while.

In any event the added publicity is good because it warns patients.

 

[tboy]

I didn't see any where in that article that said people died from the drug use, it states repeatedly that there are high risks, can anyone point out where it says someone died?

I take Lipitor for my high cholesteral and there are risks involved in that (liver enzymes)