Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Merck on Trial | Main | A Tale of Two Trials »

July 27, 2005

Once And For All

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since I was speaking about who might win the first Vioxx trial, I should finish my thoughts. If Merck loses (which they may or may not deserve to), the next question is what sort of damages they should pay out.

It's safe to say that my estimate and that of Mark Lanier, the chief attorney for the plaintiffs, would differ by several orders of magnitude. He would doubtless be overjoyed by, say, a three hundred million dollar award, and would rejoice at the thought of this opening the floodgates for more of the same. I, on the other hand, would be extremely upset at the likely destruction of a great drug company.

What to do? I sometimes think that every prescription in the country should be covered by a blanket waiver, which would go something like this:

"The manufacturer, together with the Food and Drug Administration, have investigated the safety and efficacy of this medication. By allowing it to be dispensed, these parties have agreed that, on the basis of the available data, its use represents a reasonable return in beneficial health effects, as compared to the concomitant risks.

By accepting this medication, you the consumer agree that you have been informed that these risks are real, and that they can include, but are not necessarily limited to, those detailed in the package insert. Although medications are tested in humans before regulatory approval, no such clinical trials can possibly predict what may occur when a new drug is widely dispensed in the general population. Use of this medication will define you as a participant in the post-approval study of this drug, and may affect your legal status to obtain redress from any real or perceived injuries associated with its use.

Should any criminal activity be shown to have occurred during the development or approval of this drug, including but not limited to the presentation of fraudulent data or the witholding of relevant information, this waiver may be voided in whole or in part."

The chances of such a thing coming into force? Snowball, hell.

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Toxicology


COMMENTS

1. Kay on July 28, 2005 7:02 AM writes...

You have forgotten to mention that the prescriber may be prescribing the brand name in order to suck on the payola tit. In the case of Vioxx, etc. the over-the-counter options did not have a tit to offer. Any disclaimer to patients must admit that attractive people, money, and favors are known to affect prescribing.

Permalink to Comment

2. Daen de Leon on July 28, 2005 9:28 AM writes...

It's interesting if your disclaimer is paraphrased with respect to air travel, Derek. However, while there are parallels, there are rarely situations where air travel is strictly necessary, and a lower-risk travel solution can usually be found. Indeed, in these enlightened times the journey can sometimes be completely eschewed.


But with respect to prescription drugs, it wouldn't be always entirely fair or even possible for patients to grapple with the risk/benefit calculus, especially where there is no alternative. This is of course already a problem in critical care trials where informed consent usually has to be delegated to a surrogate. Should the power of acceptance of legal waiver for prescription medication also be covered by surrogate consent?


I appreciate that your concerns are about protecting the engine of innovation, and rightly so. My concern with such a disclaimer, and the legal instruments that would presumably enable it, is that instead of providing an impetus for Big Pharma to look at the reasons why the same drug acts differently on different phenotypes, it instead allows Big Pharma to shrug its shoulders and say "these things happen". I don't think that's the right signal to send.


"The manufacturer, together with the Federal Aviation Administration, have investigated the safety and efficacy of this aircraft. By allowing it to be flown, these parties have agreed that, on the basis of the available data, its use represents a reasonable return in beneficial travel effects, as compared to the concomitant risks.


By accepting this seat, you the consumer agree that you have been informed that these risks are real, and that they can include, but are not necessarily limited to, those detailed in the emergency instructions in the seat pocket in front of you. Although aircraft are tested by trained pilots before regulatory approval, no such trials can possibly predict what may occur when a new aircraft is widely flown in the real world. Use of this aircraft will define you as a participant in its post-approval study, and may affect your legal status to obtain redress from any real or perceived injuries associated with its use.


Should any criminal activity be shown to have occurred during the development or approval of this aircraft, including but not limited to the presentation of fraudulent data or the witholding of relevant information, this waiver may be voided in whole or in part."

Permalink to Comment

3. Jeff on July 28, 2005 9:34 AM writes...

Isn't part of the problem due to the fact that Merck was trying to suppress info about cardio problems associated w/ Vioxx?

I thought I read a news article where the sales reps were instructed to avoid the issue and if the MD's brough it up, to talk around it.

there's a lot to read out there, I may be wrong

Permalink to Comment

4. Derek Lowe on July 28, 2005 10:46 AM writes...

Jeff, I've heard reports about that, too. If that turns out to be the case, my sympathy for the company is going to take a big hit. To a degree, this is what marketing people do all the time. But there's a line out there somewhere, and just because I can't draw its exact position doesn't mean it isn't there. . .

Permalink to Comment

5. peej on July 28, 2005 10:27 PM writes...

The whole "dodge ball" fiasco looks bad, but apparently was an innocent training 'game' for Merck sales reps. The concept seemed to be teaching the reps how to "dodge" questions that would lead them off track of their sales pitch - and into illegal (off label) territory. A sales rep simply is not allowed to honestly answer a question about safety if the data has not made it into the label yet per FDA regulations. Stupid? yes- but this rule will prevent the reps from 'spinning' the data - they simply cannot comment.

Permalink to Comment

6. WBurke on July 29, 2005 8:16 AM writes...

You really are a crack smoking nutjob Derek, and this post is evidence that you type while completely stoned out of your head.

FDA approved drugs kill between 106,00/year and over 420,000/year and you want to give them a blanket waiver?

Not only are you an pathetic stump for the drug industry (hiding out in the blogosphere of self promotion and self-aggrandizement) but you're not even in tune with what is going on in DC.

With the current climate you just might get your wish, something I'm sure will light up your dreams with images of more money for the drug lords of BIG PHARMA and less life for the lowly working class stiff who are coerced and cajoled into taking your industries potions, concoction and toxic tablets.

Permalink to Comment

7. crack smoking nutjob on July 29, 2005 12:00 PM writes...

WBurke, go shill elsewhere. The irony is that you continue to say things about Derek that are much more true about yourself. It's called projection, but that's a word only a dirty, educated, SCIENTIST might use, not a money grubber selling false hope and placebos.


Permalink to Comment

8. TFox on July 29, 2005 12:22 PM writes...

Wburke is almost right: despite drugs, or sometimes because of them, people continue to die at a rate of 100%. The question is how, when, and why, and how to live as long and happily as possible. WRT COX-2 specific inhibitors, I was shocked when I learned of the death rates from GI complications from the nonspecific COX inhibitors they replaced. One study (Aliment Pharmacol Ther 11:283 1997) found the risk of serious GI complications for NSAID users of 2.1%/yr, with death occuring in 10-15% of hospitalizations (Gut 28:527 1987). That seems to be a lot of people dying of things the COX-2's can reduce, a number of similar magnitude to the estimates of people killed of CV complications of the COX-2's. Figuring out the best strategy for each individual patient isn't trivial. I guess that's why doctors get paid the big bucks...

Permalink to Comment

9. The Novice Chemist on July 29, 2005 9:05 PM writes...

I was really shocked at wburke's characterization of Derek as a 'crack-smoking nutjob.' I'm guessing that's the very definition of an ad hominem.


Anyway, since I was bored (being a grad student and all -- I got 2 reactions running), I thought I would compile a list of all the negative things he's called our proprietor and the industry. Ready? Here we go:


worthless, scientific nutjobs, industry shills, legends in your own minds, drug pushers, without consciences, egotistical Big Pharma droids (nice!), manure pushers, liars, worthless, ungrateful, EPIC FAILURES, and yahoos.


[big breath] stooge, wiseguy, idiot, lame, scam scientists, smack freaks (whoa!), drug peddlers, pawns and pill pushers.


Wow. That's a lot of nastiness.

Permalink to Comment

10. Derek Lowe on July 29, 2005 9:34 PM writes...

Thanks for doing the legwork, Novice. You should set that to music (before Burke does - for all I know, he sings while he's posting.)

Permalink to Comment

11. daen on July 30, 2005 9:02 AM writes...

FDA approved drugs kill between 106,00/year and over 420,000/year and you want to give them a blanket waiver?

WBurke, how many people die through failing to get a potentially life-threatening ailment treated because instead of receiving genuine medical attention, they are deceived by those touting untested "alternative" medicines of doubtful efficacy, or worse, are conned into taking some uncontrolled but actively dangerous "natural" remedy?

Permalink to Comment

12. WBurke` on August 1, 2005 7:59 AM writes...

Hey daen - that is a phony statement you drug peddlers and pushers throw out to convince unknowing people that there are no studies to support alternative practices - there are probably more studies and evidence to support alternatives than there are legitimate studies to support "Western medicine" considering the following:


94% of claims made about prescription drugs not backed by clinical studies - source British Medical Journal

On the other side of the coin, just one of the countless studies supporting "alternative" medicine:

Antitumor effect of nutrient synergy on human osteosarcoma cells U-2OS, MNNG-HOS and Ewing's sarcoma SK-ES.1


Oncol Rep 2005 Feb;13(2):253-7

That is just one of Dr. Rath's published studies but it is sufficient to dispel your claim there are "NO" studies to support alternatives.

You elitist scumbags feed of the ignorance of people and shove your misinformation in front of people as much as possible to confuse them into buying what you have to sell, which doesn't really amount to squat when you get past all the hype.

Permalink to Comment

13. daen on August 1, 2005 9:23 PM writes...

So, you don't know. The reason you don't know is because you can't find out, because any "practitioner" of alternative medicine can make any claim he damn well wants to, and take money from the public to boot, with hardly any reporting requirements. What is the evidence that these people understand drug/drug interactions or epidemiology or adverse event reporting or ADME-T? Scant, as far as I can tell.

Permalink to Comment

14. WBurke on August 1, 2005 10:01 PM writes...

Where do you get the gall to act self-righteous daen - Western Medicine, driven by the Big Pharma influence KILLS around 1 MILLION Americans EVERY YEAR! KILLS! DEAD! 1 million, that's 1,000,000 or 1 in every 320 Americans every year dies at the hands of drug companies and medical practitioners practicing per the AMA and Allopathic Paridigm. The only way it is not overturned is the sheer magnitude of advertising and collusion that the drug companies are involved in with the media and governments they've bought and paid for.

Permalink to Comment

15. WBurke on August 1, 2005 10:01 PM writes...

Where do you get the gall to act self-righteous daen - Western Medicine, driven by the Big Pharma influence KILLS around 1 MILLION Americans EVERY YEAR! KILLS! DEAD! 1 million, that's 1,000,000 or 1 in every 320 Americans every year dies at the hands of drug companies and medical practitioners practicing per the AMA and Allopathic Paridigm.

The only reason it is not overturned is the sheer magnitude of advertising and collusion that the drug companies are involved in with the media and governments they've bought and paid for.

Permalink to Comment

16. daen on August 2, 2005 7:32 AM writes...

WBurke, here's a thought. Why don't you get a card printed that you can carry? It could read something like:

"I eschew Western medicine. If I am involved in an accident or am taken seriously ill, please do not diagnose me using modern medical imaging technologies including PET, MRI or CAT. Do not administer me with antibiotics. Do not anaesthetize me during operations. Indeed, do not perform surgery on me at all using vile modern medical practices such as "scrubbing up", not even for compound fractures or appendicitis. I have my own trusty nostrums with which it is my goal to courageously roll back medical progress by 500 years.
Signed William Burke.
PS Mourners are requested to make donations to Drs Rath and Null"
.

You could even print a few more (kind of like an anti-donor card - a "medical Luddite" card, if you will) and try selling them. Then you can leave "In The Pipeline" in peace, with the warm glowing contentment of a job well done, and we'd all be happy.

Permalink to Comment

17. Derek Lowe on August 2, 2005 7:37 AM writes...

I think that's a heck of an idea. Make sure to mention that you don't want any transfusions (or even isotonic saline), either.

Permalink to Comment

18. qetzal on August 2, 2005 5:32 PM writes...

The funny thing is, every time Burke posts, the number of people being killed by Big Pharma and the MDs goes up.

First it was 100K/yr. Then it was 420K/yr. Now it's a million Americans a year! I believe that works out to 40% of all US deaths!

I can think of only one solution. Derek, you have to ban Burke! Otherwise, it'll only take a few more posts, and the death rate will be up to 10 or 20 million/yr. The country would never survive it!

P.S. In case there are any Dave Barry fans out there, yes, Big Pharma and the MDs wbagnfarb!

Permalink to Comment

19. Timothy on August 3, 2005 3:07 PM writes...

Derek: You know MT allows you to ban IPs, right? I might give ol' William the boot. This is my first time here and I can tell he's a nutter.

Permalink to Comment

20. WBurke on August 3, 2005 11:23 PM writes...

You're funny daen, well in a sad and confused sort of way but rest assured I loathe the day I ever have to step foot in a hospital for my own sake or that of anyone I know and/or love. I'm sure there will be some fur flying as I am not afraid to ruffle the ego's of the doc's if they act out of line. They, and the nurses, get a bit miffed when you tell them you don't need their drugs. I felt like I was the first patient ever to do so, IT WAS AWESOME!!!

qetzal - you can't just read the post for sport you have to read the posts for understanding.

100K+/- - the oft reported # from a late '90's study published in JAMA which is still a number that has yet to be placed on the CDC Leading CoD Top 10. Why?

The 420K is a more up to date and practical number based upon more current data by Dr. Lucian Leape.

The 1 Million includes all IATROGENIC causes, not just drug disorders or adverse effects of FDA Approved drugs.

Oh poor Timothy, truth hurts huh?

Permalink to Comment

21. daen on August 4, 2005 6:14 AM writes...

100K+/- - the oft reported # from a late '90's study published in JAMA which is still a number that has yet to be placed on the CDC Leading CoD Top 10. Why?

From the abstract: "While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue."

That's why.


The 420K is a more up to date and practical number based upon more current data by Dr. Lucian Leape
Leape's 1994 figures have been jumped on by your chum Mercola to arrive at the number of 420,000. Leape himself testified in a 2000 Senate subcommittee on health hearing that "as many as 100,000 die as a result of errors in [hospitals'] care" (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/sleape.html).

Permalink to Comment

22. WBurke on August 4, 2005 12:25 PM writes...

Actually daen you are wrong on both accounts. but specifically on the 420K Lucian Leape number you could not be more wrong.


That number is brought to the fore in the Death By Medicine Study done by Dr.'s Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, et al in which they actually present it as an alternative number, not the one to bring the count of those KILLED by medicine to 783,936 but the lesser emphasized number of 999,936. The fact that Dr. Joseph Mercola posts it on his website does not diminish the factuality of the numbers, nor does your trite diversionary effort diminish the very REAL fact that medicine is a scourge on the whole of humanity.

But what could we expect from a group of people who have taken the natural elements and synthecized them to develop patentable drugs and turned around and villified the natural elements from whence they came? Red Yeast Rice - example #1, Ephedra - example #2

Permalink to Comment

23. daen on August 4, 2005 2:11 PM writes...

Actually daen you are wrong on both accounts.

WBurke, are you the chimeric outcome of an unholy alliance of a human and a mule? Or maybe you have trouble with the English language? Or perhaps your problem is you can't think clearly enough to admit when someone else has proven you wrong? Or maybe your version of Google taps into a who-o-o-le different version of the world wide web to mine? Whatever, you definitely have kangaroos loose in the top paddock.

Fact: I quote the conclusion from the very paper you reference (I guess you haven't bothered to actually read it - fair enough, there are some pretty long words in there).

Fact: Lucian Leape has stated "as many as 100,000" in front of a Senate committee (and has thus been reported as a fact of fact).

Now, unless you have a connection to an alternative reality that the rest of us cannot share (a very distinct possibility, as you are denying the publicly stated facts), I don't see how much less wrong I could be. Nyah.

Permalink to Comment

24. WBurke on August 6, 2005 8:27 AM writes...

Daen - You'd have to square that with this direct quote from Death By Medicine:

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. 14 Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14% (that Leape used in 1994)16 we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou’s 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 98,000 medical errors (which may have a drug error overlap with Lazorou¹s study), we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

Maybe Leape did quote the 100K number before Congress, ignoring his own results and presenting to them the oft repeated sum from the "To Err is Human..." study - you would think that telling Congress that 100,000 Americans are killed every year by something would get their attention, but Big Pharma has silenced them by greasing their slimy palms with blood money.

As for quoting from the very paper I reference, HERE is the Conclusion from the Death By Medicine, Null, Dean, et al... study:

When the number one killer in a society is the healthcare system, then, that system has no excuse except to address its own urgent shortcomings. It’s a failed system in need of immediate attention. What we have outlined in this paper are insupportable aspects of our contemporary medical system that need to be changed - beginning at its very foundations.

There is no reference to any numbers except the #1 KILLER in society being the healthcare system.

See for yourself you hack:

http://www.garynull.com/documents/iatrogenic/deathbymedicine/DeathByMedicine8.htm


You have always been wrong daen, the only place you might be considered right is in the twisted world of Big Pharma and your own mind. As a wise man once said, "Don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasy!"


Maybe it might do you all some good to read the text on Recent Adverse Drug Reactions from the study itself:

More recent studies on adverse drug reactions show that the figures from 1994 (published in Lazarou’s 1998 JAMA article) may be increasing. A 2003 study followed four hundred patients after discharge from a tertiary care hospital (hospital care that requires highly specialized skills, technology, or support services). Seventy-six patients (19%) had adverse events. Adverse drug events were the most common at 66%. The next most common events were procedure-related injuries at 17%.40

In a NEJM study an alarming one-in-four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002.41 One of the doctors who produced the study was interviewed by Reuters and commented that, "With these 10-minute appointments, it's hard for the doctor to get into whether the symptoms are bothering the patients."42 William Tierney, who editorialized on the NEJM study, said “… given the increasing number of powerful drugs available to care for the aging population, the problem will only get worse.” The drugs with the worst record of side effects were the SSRIs, the NSAIDs, and calcium-channel blockers. Reuters also reported that prior research has suggested that nearly 5% of hospital admissions - over 1 million per year - are the result of drug side effects. But most of the cases are not documented as such. The study found one of the reasons for this failure: in nearly two-thirds of the cases, doctors couldn’t diagnose drug side effects or the side effects persisted because the doctor failed to heed the warning signs.

I know that's an awful lot for you guys to read, but try to make it through it, the facts are clear FDA Approved Drugs KILL!

Permalink to Comment

25. daen on August 7, 2005 6:44 PM writes...

1. Regardless of whether Leape changed his mind or not, I quoted the publicly quoted facts, which you have now wavered on to the point of acceptance. Good.

2. "Death By Medicine" is not the JAMA paper. It has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. It is copyright Nutrition Institute of America, Inc. It is not referenced in PubMed. It does, however, reference the paper [1] which you actually refer to in the following statement:

100K+/- - the oft reported # from a late '90's study published in JAMA which is still a number that has yet to be placed on the CDC Leading CoD Top 10. Why?
... which paper's abstract, once again, because the straw between your ears is obviously damp, I draw your attention to:

"While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue."


It matters a great deal that Lazarou and coauthors couch their conclusions in such cautious language. It means that they are not certain, that the results are possibly statistical anomalies, and that any paper referencing Lazarou, Pomeranz and Corey had better take that into account, which "Death By Medicine" certainly does not. "Death by Medicine" swindles people like yourself into believing that because Null and chums quote papers from JAMA, then they know what they are talking about. Now you've forced me to dig into it more, I can quite clearly see that they are being intellectually dishonest and therefore completely suspect in their conclusions, so thank you for that.


[1] Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.

Permalink to Comment

26. WBurke on August 7, 2005 9:31 PM writes...

Daen - Do NOT delude yourself into thinking I accept your whitewash of the situation, you have again ignored the FACT that Leape was the PUBLISHED author of a death rate of 14%

To clarify AGAIN here is the text:

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14% (that Leape used in 1994 - Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851-7.) we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined.

It begs to be asked of you: are you really so brainwashed that 420,000 deaths per year do not cause you any concern, or are you really so stupid as to believe that a study published almost solely on publicly provided statistics which amass a death total of nearly 1 MILLION deaths per year could be so easily dismissed?

Yeah JAMA hasn't published it - when have they ever taken any responsibility for their collossal failure to alert the public?

The majority of their non-subsriber funding comes directly from Big Pharma so why would they possibly bite the hand that ffeeds them and expose the truth? Another means to an end for the drug pushers and peddlers of health ignorance and misinformation like yourself.

The scariest part IS that despite the astronomical numbers quoted (I might add that Family Physicians Monthly Journal - American Family Physician Nov. 1997 - states that 10% of all hospital admissions may be from drug-induced disorders, BUT this number "may be a significant underestimate, it puts the # of DD events at over 1 million WHILE IN THE HOSPITAL, not including those who suffer outside the confines of the hospital, and ultimately that 180,000 deaths occur from DD's - again this is ONLY IN HOSPITALS.

Read it for yourself at:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n7_v56/ai_20125089

The industry has done NOTHING to curb these but frelly allows the drug cartel to peddle their risky concoctions without oversight of any significance whatsoever. You guys whine about any time someone comes down on you, ignoring the FACT that you caused a DEATH! Because of you someone's life, one of millions over the years, ENDED, FINISHED! CAPUT! FINITO! DONE!

You can come back with some penny-ante lame excuse for why Leape should not be taken serious, why "What about all the lives that are saved by drugs - BS daen. Nothing but BS is all it is - a smoke screen so you greedy scum can swindol more dollars from more people so more of you can drive bigger cars and live bigger lives. Oh the lameness of it all.

Prov. 10:2: Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, But righteousness delivers from death.

Permalink to Comment

27. daen on August 8, 2005 4:11 AM writes...

I'm not giving "Death By Medicine" any credence at all. I will read the papers they reference and draw my own conclusions rather than being told by Null and buddies what to think. You would serve yourself better to do the same rather than unquestioningly sucking down their prechewed pabulum. Sure, it takes time, and you might need to actually think about what you're reading ...


Yeah JAMA hasn't published it - when have they ever taken any responsibility for their collossal failure to alert the public? The majority of their non-subsriber funding comes directly from Big Pharma so why would they possibly bite the hand that ffeeds them and expose the truth? Another means to an end for the drug pushers and peddlers of health ignorance and misinformation like yourself.
So, you're happy to accept the fact that Null and chums rely heavily on JAMA papers, which by your logic are presumably devoid of information content and full of Big Pharma propaganda, while simultaneously castigatíng JAMA because they won't touch Null's stuff with a ten-foot barge pole? So, we have a bit of a conundrum, don't we?

Either:
1. JAMA publish quality papers some of which Null et al have referenced in their own paper to bolster their case. But wait! Null et al couldn't get published in JAMA! So perhaps their paper is rubbish?
Or;
2. JAMA publish lies and propaganda, some of which Null et al have used in their own paper. But wait! Null et al have built an argument using lies and propaganda! So perhaps their paper is rubbish?

drive bigger cars and live bigger lives.
Do you really think that's why people work in pharma and biotech? So you, the "Health Ranger", Gary Null and Mercola are not doing this for the money, are you? I mean, you'd give the stuff away, right? Except it costs money to develop, produce, market, ship ... Plus you have to make a living, right? Hmmm. I guess that make you very different from anyone else ...

Permalink to Comment

28. WBurke on August 8, 2005 8:58 AM writes...

Yeah, that's what I thought daen - so when I go to the doctor and tell him to shove his drugs up his nose I'm gonna do my own research it would make sense to you right? I mean after all he's only getting his information from a bunch of drug salesmen and pushers so clearly I should do my own due diligence before ingesting some toxic chemicals into my body. I justified in doing that right, rather than just buying hook, line and sinker whatever the cookie cutter doctors push on patients.

You're incapable of seeing beyond your brainwashed ideology so I'll tell you what, why don't you suck down all the prescription drugs you can possibly find to mask all the symptoms of disease your doctors can identify in you, or you know if you see a commercial and it makes you want to ask your doctor for some new drug, or wait I'm sorry that should be about, not for, some new drug then have at it you fool, I'll take the advice of a Mercola, Null, Health Ranger, J.D. Folts to PREVENT the diseases and WIPEOUT THE CAUSE rather than a constant chasing after symptoms like Western Medicine is build around.

Permalink to Comment

29. Suzie Henrey on August 8, 2005 3:47 PM writes...

The facts on "studies" of Vioxx are confusing, to say the least. Somewhere I read that over 70% of clinical trials/studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies is troublesome. In your opinion, do these COX-2's cause a 3 times more likely chance of cardivascular problems, including heart attack and stroke, in those with no history of heart problems? I have no history of such and did well on Vioxx for over 6 years. I would gladly sign a waiver if they would put it back on the market. Celebrex doesn't seem to help after 2 weeks and my pharmacist says it should be working by now. I am now in excruciating pain daily and even with multiple diagnoses and x-rays that make technicians cringe, I find it is like pulling hen's teeth to get a doctor to give you pain meds, even after 6+ years on the same dosage, same med. (Darvocet). Any suggestions? Thanks.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Messed-Up Clinical Studies: A First-Hand Report
Pharma and Ebola
Lilly Steps In for AstraZeneca's Secretase Inhibitor
Update on Alnylam (And the Direction of Things to Come)
There Must Have Been Multiple Chances to Catch This
Weirdly, Tramadol Is Not a Natural Product After All
Thiola, Retrophin, Martin Shkrell, Reddit, and More
The Most Unconscionable Drug Price Hike I Have Yet Seen