Alright, I’m a biased source. I am the first to admit it. I don’t like the drug companies. Maybe it’s because they were responsible for my Mother’s death via drug interaction/accidental overdose. Maybe it’s because insurance makes my medication and medication for millions of people overwhelmingly expensive every month. Maybe it’s because I hate taking my medication and if you’ve read my other blog posts on the topic or know me personally, you would know that already. Maybe it’s all three.
Anyway- I hate that many drugs have really bad side effects. I’m not talking about dry mouth or decreased appetite (though they are annoying and I do whine about them). I’m talking about medications that perform the exact opposite function that they were designed to do. Despite the FDA testing drugs harsher than many other nations in the world, backlogging progress, and jacking up the price from “lesser” drugs from Canada, we still have drugs on the market harming people everyday.
I’m tempted to copy and paste all of the article from the front page of the NYT online, but that would be extremely long and if you are interested, please check it out. Here is the permalink, so even if it gets archived, this article will still be available to you. However, I will include the 1st paragraph and what I found to be the most important aspects of the article for you to peruse.
A clinical trial of Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug prescribed to about 1 million people a week, failed to show that the drug has any medical benefits, Merck and Schering-Plough said on Monday…
…While Zetia lowers cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent in most patients, no trial has ever shown that it can reduce heart attacks and strokes — or even that it reduces the growth of the fatty plaques in arteries that can cause heart problems.
This trial was designed to show that Zetia could reduce the growth of those plaques. Instead, the plaques actually grew almost twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor than in those taking Zocor alone…
…”This is as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared,” Dr. Nissen (the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic) said. Millions of patients may be taking a drug that has no benefits for them, raising their risk of heart attacks and exposing them to potential side effects, he said.
I just want the FDA to do a better job and I want the drug companies to perform better tests prior to release on the market. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable complaint, especially since I am a regular ‘client’ of the drug companies. I still don’t think it’s unreasonable, considering the fact that I am very biased against them, but I’m sure you all could let me know. Feel free to comment.
*****
With some reflection, I think that the doctors and we, the patients, may be the problem as well. If we weren’t so eager to solve problems with a pill, many problems could be averted. In this case, obviously the individuals cannot lower their cholesterol via diet and exercise if the drug is working against them and when they obviously need a cholesterol lowering drug. For these patients it is an unfortunate and grim fate that they befall. However, we shouldn’t let the drug companies get the best of us and actually request every drug we see on TV. The drug companies want us to believe we have any and all illnesses that they can claim to solve because they want you buying their prescription. The drug companies are a very biased source and will say just about anything to sell their wares. In other words advertising is getting the best of us, and it’s time we learned to tune the drug companies biased messages out.
Tags: cholesterol-lowering drug, FDA, heart attacks, medicational side-effects, Merck, NYT, People I dislike, Prescription drugs, Schering-Plough, stroke, Zetia
January 14, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Other than the significant reduction in cholesterol brought about by taking this drug, there is no medical benefit whatsoever from taking this drug. Funny how a drug marketed as a cholesterol reducing agent which reduces cholesterol can be criticized because it failed to prevent heart attacks in people with a genetic predisposition that placed them at an elevated risk for such events.
It could be that the study participants, (720 people with a genetic condition which caused a tendency toward very high cholesterol) could be at fault. Maybe it’s a encoded genetic response to produce more fatty plaque to counteract the reduction in cholesterol. Those are just my unbiased thoughts.
“The drug companies are a very biased source and will say just about anything to sell their wares. In other words advertising is getting the best of us, and it’s time we learned to tune the drug companies biased messages out.”
You know, you could sub in any company in lieu of drug companies and these sentences would still make sense. I’m going to do it a couple of times because I feel like being a snark.
“The car companies are a very biased source and will say just about anything to sell their wares. In other words advertising is getting the best of us, and it’s time we learned to tune the car companies biased messages out.”
“The pet supply companies are a very biased source and will say just about anything to sell their wares. In other words advertising is getting the best of us, and it’s time we learned to tune the pet supply companies biased messages out.”
Sincerely,
Shill for big pharma.
January 14, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Oh Mark. I’m not saying that it is unlike other companies. In fact, I’m saying it is exactly like other companies, but you can’t market health.
Your points on the study are inaccurate, you should read the article. The purpose of the experiment was to prove how great Zetia was, thus they would have been less likely to use the individuals you are speaking of. It’s only because the company was wanting to prove how great their product is that the danger of the drug came to light.
“It could be that the study participants, (720 people with a genetic condition which caused a tendency toward very high cholesterol) could be at fault. Maybe it’s a encoded genetic response to produce more fatty plaque to counteract the reduction in cholesterol. Those are just my unbiased thoughts.”
Unwarranted claim? Yes, yes it is. In what biological sense does that work? Explain to me the science on that one, I would love to hear it.
Now don’t get me wrong Mark, I want to hear comments about this, I do. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to refute them, especially when you are obviously biased in the opposite way. i could get into that whole discussion as to why I think your stance as “Shill for big pharma.” is silly, but i’ll save it for another day.
January 15, 2008 at 12:01 am
To reinforce my point- Should you take medication because of a commercial? Or because you legitimately need it?
Similarly people shouldn’t buy products that they don’t need but see an ad for… in any industry.
Health should not be a product we market and have to buy into.
Additionally – people shouldn’t have to try out multiple health products to find the one that suits them. They should be matched with the medication by doctors. Instead patients, with little to no medical knowledge, decide that they need Paxil because they had a rough day at work. IT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN. Medical professionals should practice medicine, otherwise get rid of them and just sell it all OTC at exorbitant prices. Oh wait, we already sell them at exorbitant prices… my bad.
January 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Seems to me that you’re the one who’s not reading the article.
You say “The purpose of the experiment was to prove how great Zetia was, thus they would have been less likely to use the individuals you are speaking of.” But, they used the people who I am talking about in the article.
As for the “unwarranted claim” about genetics, I don’t know why their bodies are making more fatty plaques. I do know that the drug did exactly what it was advertised to do and reduce their cholesterol.
What did I say about the study that was inaccurate? If you’re going to say I am making inaccurate statements, you should point out what the inaccuracy is, instead of making an. . . unwarranted claim?
Let’s see. What did I say again about the study? The people in the study numbered 720. They were genetically predisposed to bad cholesterol.
“The Enhance trial covered patients with a gene that causes them to produce very high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, commonly called L.D.L., or bad cholesterol. Patients in the trial had L.D.L. levels of about 320 milligrams per deciliter at the beginning of the trial, about three times the level cardiologists recommend.”
Maybe people shouldn’t get Paxil because they had a bad day at work. But people with genetic predispositions toward bad cholesterol should get drugs to lower that cholesterol.
January 15, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Maybe people shouldn’t get Paxil because they had a bad day at work. But people with genetic predispositions toward bad cholesterol should get drugs to lower that cholesterol.”
That’s the purpose of Zetia, thus why it was being prescribed for these individuals. But because of inaccurate testing upon its release to the market, everyone assumed it was doing its job, of helping people lower their cholesterol. It goes back to what I said in the entry- There should be better testing by the company and the FDA. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me on anything else, I don’t think you can disagree with me there.
April 29, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Ahh cholesterol. Cholesterol is basically the bodies super glue used to fill rips in the artery walls.
Some of these rips are caused by the very same chemicals the FDA approved to use in our food and water supply. Chemical Sweeteners, fluoride, MSG, ‘natural flavors’, when looked at under a fine microscope, the molecules look like shards of glass with jagged edges and do flow through the bloodstream in that manner, the chem itself never fully dissolves.
Chemicals such as fluoride and MSG also break down into wood alcohol/formaldehyde in the bloodstream. Fluoride was also used as a ‘mind numbing agent’ by the Nazis against the jewish population in prison camps, by dumping it into their water supply. It was used to depress them and make them docile. The FDA says fluoride and MSG is safe.
FYI: Many of the FDA execs have worked for the drug and food companies with stock still in some of these poisons/chems being sold to us.