Drug companies

[turbulence]

Why is it drug companies withhold information about what certain drugs are taking away from the body when being used to treat the condition they were designed for?

[erijon]

I appreciate your opinions, there are some very interesting thoughts that you have brought up. You are correct, we won't all agree but that's how we learn. It is important to see both sides, if not how can we be motivated to learn more?

Thanks for posting and don't be a stranger.

Jon

[turbulence]

Well, I haven't posted in a while (no time), but I did want to add thanks for anyone who responded to my posts-agree or disagree! One pill that most docs will share the knowledge of how the generic of Synthroid-Levothyroxine; does not contain the exact dosage in each pill. I have personally experienced it. Also, I can tell you you a good resource, book "Drug Muggers" by Suzie Cohen is full of truth that you will not hear freely shared by any doc.
Also, Synthroid was used for 46 years with being approved by the FDA. There was a settlement because the drug company was sued. This is not the only drug that has been found in question...http://www.drugrecalls.com. There will always be the great debate among us, but the proof is in the outcome. I want healing. I do not settle for covering up the root of the problem-and I won't. I need quality of life otherwise; what's the point? I can say one of my best friends had arthritis in the fingers and took a supplement (one bottle total) of (I'll have to ask if you really want to know-I forgot and it's too late to call right now to find out!) and has had NO pain since. IT healed IT. That's medicine; not phony guessing.
Sometimes health conditions may require a drug taken daily & forever, but not all conditions require that-even supplements. You don't need to supplement unless the body is out of balance. Most of us are out in one way or another because there isn't an M.D. that is trained in America to understand the body and how to heal it! It's really sad. Have you not heard that cancer and aids can be cured? You've never known famous people that are healed from such aggressive diseases? Research research and never stop researching both sides of the fence because eventually one will out weigh the other.

[is_something_wrong]

Hi Jon, thanks for the reply.

It's strange, really. I don't understand it.
Lately I've measured the BP in lots of presumably stressful settings.

Results as follows:

Watching football match on TV at 1-0 with 5 minutes left of the game: 125/75 hr 93
During a heavy argument/discussion: 120/80 hr 63
(I seem to get slower heart rate from talking a lot, don't know why)
Right after a stressful day at work: 125/70 hr 74
During a panic attack: 135/70 hr 147
After 30 small jumps on the floor (standing): 129/66 hr 90


Compared with in bed, in the morning: 100/55 hr 49

Only thing that seems to really elevate BP is actually worrying about ut. If I do (I'm better at relaxing now during the test) it was previously in the 150s systolic. Maybe I'm also in better physical shape now, who knows.

By the way, and I thought this was the most important: Isn't the BP supposed to increase with stress, anxiety or exercise? My BP during peak exercise is 200/90 and this was considered excellent. My mother got a stress test done a couple of weeks ago. Resting BP 125/75, max BP 200/97. Doctor said: Perfectly normal.

[erijon]

A couple things to keep in mind. First off, no doctor can make you take anything. If you are not comfortable with it, just say no.

Secondly, the issue with white coat hypertension is that it shows how your system responds to stress. I have it as well, it doesn't matter what type of doctor I'm seeing, my Orthopedic or my family doc, my BP spikes at 140/90. As you can see on my tracker, I always tend to be at or near 111/67 at home. I have to take a copy of it wit me when I see my doctor so he doesn't over react. As it was explained to me, people with white coat will also spike their BP at other times of stress beyond what normal individuals will. So although you're normal at home, it is safe to say that you are running a higher BP than most during stressful events like bad traffic, standing in lines or dealing with work.

Just thought I would throw that out.

Jon

[is_something_wrong]

I don't like conspiracy theories, but at some point I agree. In my opinion, some conditions are over-treated with medications and I strongly suspect that there are financial motives behind it. In my case, it's the white coat hypertension.

I used to be afraid of doctors, and my BP in the doctors office was 140-160/90-95. At home, my BP is almost always normal, in the 100-120/50-60 range (and yes, my monitor is correct).In my country, the doctors recognize this as white coat hypertension and they just laugh. Even my cardiologist told me that he had patients with BP at 200 systolic that was just extreme cases of white coat hypertension. If this happened in the US, I'm sure the doctor would force me to take medications, based on what I've read here. If I didn't, it would get some sort of consequence.

Even during high mental stress, my BP at home remains normal. Unless I'm afraid of the results. Even during a panic attack, my BP is fairly normal (135/70 with heart rate of 147).

[vienna13]

Well in my opinion All medications are awful, and we are all victims, that’s the truth, we are just kidding ourselves about how safe or how not so safe some Drugs are. We are killing ourselves slowly with our medications, ALL harm for our system for some way….more or less….but the big question and the only question is that would we die without them sooner? If the answer is yes we have to, we must take those poisons called prescription medication.. :)
This why it upsets me when I see people taking medication when they had other way to get better, when they take pills for everything they shouldn’t….

[erijon]

My doctor explained the risks to me and I also researched it a swell. You may need a new doctor. Statins are not for everyone, however it is extremely rare (.001%) that there is any permanent muscle damage from statins. That makes it very safe.

I get concerned when people are quick to blame statins and stop looking for another underlying cause. Makes you wonder how often statins are blamed for another condition.

[Occupant]

I don't know where this "over the counter" thing in regards to Vytorin started. Vytorin always was and still is a Statin drug that is only available via prescription. And my beef was that no doctor nor the company tells you what all the side effects are until you wind up in the E.R. (at least in my case) and even then nobody knows, I had to be the guinea pig and come up with a solution myself. Later on when I mentioned it to doctors, it was "Yes, that can happen" I would rather have all the information on a drug before I take it, placebo effect or no. It just laughable to say: "Sorry, the manufacturer never came across this before."

[erijon]

Digitek was recalled due to a manufacturing defect. This can happen with any drug or supplement, it's not a result of an FDA error.

As far as the placebo affect, I certainly believe that is part of all studies. If you go back to the original study for Simvastatin (4S), the placebo group reported side effects at the rate of 1 in 2,223 while the statin control group reported side effects at a rate of 1 in 2,221.

[kenkeith]

Q: Do you have one example of a drug that has inconsistent dosage in a generic form.

>>>>>Yes, there is an example.  I was a participant in the thread on this forum in 2008, and there was a recall on digitek ( a generic)  and it was an overdose issue and caused serious injury.  If my memory serves.

I find it interesting, and it may be true, if telling a patient of the possible side effect may have a placebo effect. :)

[ed34]

Actually what I read was a bit different, which shows how even cover stories can emerge or change things. I read that the international community discovered the problem and proved increase with stokes/heart issues and pressurised the FDA. This also happened with the other medications I mentioned. At the end of the day, there should be a body which can verify research and verify it is safe for the population. If ANY drug making such safe claims gets onto any market, then obviously there is a LOT of room for improvement.

[erijon]

Vioxx is not really a good example of corruption in the system. There was no money exchanged or special consideration given to get Vioxx on the market. However, Vioxx is a good example of a study not digging deep enough into long term effects of a new drug. Vioxx was introduced in 1999 and was originally thought of as a treatment for polyps in the intestinal track. As independent studies started to show a correlation between Vioxx and an increase risk of heart attack and stroke, the NIH funded the VIGOR study I believe in 2001 at the request of the Arthritis Advisory Committee  to determine if there was indeed a link. What they discovered was that all NSAIDS increased the risk for heart attack and stroke with Vioxx being the worst. The FDA then mandated that the additions of heart attack and stroke be added to all NSAIDS patient information and warnings including Vioxx. The FDA published a Talk Paper and implemented labeling changes for the Vioxx based on the results of the Vigor study. It was the FDA that stepped in to see if the drug was safe and was instrumental in getting better study results and getting the drug off the market. It was the FDA that issued a Warning Letter to the manufacturer of Vioxx, telling the company to stop certain marketing practices due to "false, lacking in fair balance, or otherwise misleading" claims which violated the Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act. That is the role of the FDA.

None of this would happen with a natural product as the FDA has no control over the production or marketing of these drugs.

[ed34]

wasn't Vioxx one example? Prilosec and Nexium were a couple of others?
Ive been looking into the alleged scandals and it appears that even senators have written to the FDA due to their lack of protecting the public.
Personally turbulence, I think there is always middle ground and something has to occur to start people losing trust. When people are put into place to protect us, they are only human and we soon forget that humans have flaws. Who in their right mind will refuse a pay off of millions of dollars if they can, to ensure they have a fruitful life, along with their next generations? If we are all truly honest, money is very tempting.
We are no different in the UK, many ministers have been caught fiddling expense claims. If the governments are corrupt, you can guarantee it probably happens everywhere.

[erijon]

I appreciate your position, however I have done considerable research on this subject and I fully understand the functions of the FDA as it is administered by the NIH. You alleged that the FDA and drug companies are "friends" and that there has been scandal after scandal, can you provide one instance where a scandal has been proven? Do you have one example of a drug that has inconsistent dosage in a generic form? I do speak with doctors on a regular basis and this has never come up and we have discussed this topic at length. I would rather have a drug that has been approved via a proper long term study that I can read than a natural drug that has no basis of fact that it is effective or safe.

We do agree that every individual needs to be a responsible patient and research what they are asked to take. I have never started a drug that I don't first ask my doctor pointed questions about and then research on my own. I feel it is our responsibility.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jon

[turbulence]

Were you aware that the FDA approves drugs that were responsible for people's lives? Were you also aware this can also happen under the care of some Naturopathic doctors? The FDA has also proven to be  untrustworthy. FYI-the FDA and drug companies are friends. This world is not what it once was; scandel after scandel. The government protects you at bare minimum and they will not confess when they are wrong or doing wrong to the American people. We are still free enough to put our trust in whom we desire; do your research. No matter where a person gets drugs from, they have to research company reputations and whether their are dosage issues. Are you aware the FDA approves generic drug usage, yet any doctor will freely admit they are not the same dosage in each individual pill in most medications? All I can say is do research on both spectrum's because what is most important is your health and healing; not just opinions alone. You have to be your own advocate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L38YMhP2YdQ) and one isn't so likely to "overdose" on natural meds, but when under a Naturopathic Doctor (NP) one can't overdose because they tend to do more blood work and look deeper into the body and how drugs and nutrition affect it. The only downfall is that one has to pay out of pocket. Either way, all I'm saying is do research, research, research. Research should be longitudinal studies-decade duration; not only a year or two to prove it's safe and effective.

[erijon]

I disagree with your take on natural meds. These are not regulated by the FDA which means there is no control over the manufacturing process so you don't really know what you're getting. Some use fillers that are dangerous and there can be issues with inconsistent dosage as well. Not all supplements that claim to be all natural are completely safe.

[turbulence]

Occupant,
Just because any drug is available over-the-counter, doesn't mean they do not have side effects. And just because side effects are listed doesn't mean you are getting all the information on a drug. Vytorin is derived synthetically from a separate co-marketing agreement with merck and schering, etc. Anything sythetically made (including any over-the-counter medications) involve a risk. If a drug is from nature; it's not been genetically manipulated or formed from man-made ideas. In nature, it's very obvious if an herb or flower is "dangerous" because its poisonous. It is also important to study Any medication because the patient is usually the one who has to care enough about their own health to get a doctor to care. That's what I've learned so far...

[Occupant]

There is, of course, always that pesky profit motiv, but I think, there is more to it than that. I took Vytorin for three years and no one even hinted at the fact that I would wind up in the E.R. with severe kidney problems. In the hospitals they said after a battery of tests: "It is just muscle pains, go home." The excruciating pain in my left kidney continued and only got better after I stopped the Vytorin - self diagnosed, mind you, no doctor and no listing of side effects on the medication told me, that this could happen. And it certainly could not have been the "placebo effect", I didn't know about it until it hit me.

[ed34]

It means Doctors are not allowed to prescribe it. You have to order it online or wherever, and take at your own risk.

[turbulence]

What does "not available through our health service" mean?

[ed34]

" drug Lipitor takes away the bodys CO Q 10"

I have asked my Doctor about this and she said that there is a lot of evidence that shows taking COQ10 supplements can give dramatic improvements, but unfortunately, it is not available through our health service.

[opus88]

Ireneo tell me please do you have a web address for the PDR or did you buy it in paper form?
thanks....♥Opus

[turbulence]

Good in sight from everyone, thanks. I just know the drug Lipitor takes away the bodys CO Q 10 which the body needs and I know docs won't tell patients that up front. I wonder if they even know it.

[ed34]

I think that turbulence is correct but there is probably a very good reason for this. I remember watching a placebo study involving patients with sleep disorders. You won't believe how powerful sugar pills are at giving you a good nights sleep with no problems (placebo). In the same study, 50 patients who suffered lots of headaches were also given sugar pills, while another 50 were given sugar pills PLUS being told they may suffer dizziness as a side effect. All 50 in the first group saw their headache problem go away, while 35 of the 50 in the second group were suffering dizziness, just because they were told it was a side effect. It seems MANY people will believe they have been cured or will get side effects just through being told so. So perhaps the least information given, the better in many cases.
If 100 patients are started on statins and are told that they may suffer muscle pains, and if so, they should stop the medication, I wonder how many would feel the pains compared to if they hadn't had the pains mentioned?  Is it better to be silent and be assured that if the patient does report side effects, they are more likely to be genuine?