My HMO Tried to Kill Me!

[gblowfish]

Back in May my right knee was really sore after working on the house all weekend, and it didn't get better for about 3 weeks. So I went to my local HMO approved doctor, who xrayed it, told me I had arthritis and gave me a big honkin' box of pill samples. Said "Take these till they're all gone, then come back and I'll give you a script for them." It was Vioxx. Luckily, I only took that crap for about a week, as I couldn't tell any difference in my knee. The only thing that made it feel better was an icebag. Ice and vitamin Glucosamine have put it pretty much back to normal. But it pissed me off that these HMO bastards gave me a box full of death to take home with me. I don't think I'll take any more drugs that are aggressively advertised on TV. Damn it Merck...Damn HMO"s!!! Story is here:

Congress Told FDA Failed Public on Vioxx
*Business - Reuters By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) failed the public in its oversight of Merck & Co Inc.'s painkiller Vioxx, which has been withdrawn, and is "incapable of protecting America" from another dangerous drug, an agency researcher told Congress on Thursday.

David Graham, an FDA (news - web sites) reviewer who had warned about the heart risks of Vioxx, called the FDA's actions "a profound regulatory failure."

Concerns about a possible link between Vioxx and serious heart problems were building during the drug's more than four years on the market. The FDA required a warning about the heart risk but felt the drug's benefits made it worth keeping on the market.

Merck withdrew Vioxx on Sept. 30 after a study showed the drug doubled heart attack and stroke risk.

"I would argue the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless," Graham told the Senate Finance Committee.

Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said he was concerned the FDA had a "far too cozy" relationship with drug companies and suggested an independent office of drug safety might be needed.

Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs, said the agency "worked actively and vigorously with Merck to inform public health professionals of what was known regarding (cardiovascular risk) with Vioxx and to pursue further definitive investigations."

Graham told the committee he felt pressured by supervisors to water down his findings from a study of patient insurance records that Vioxx users had a 50 percent greater chance of heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths than people who took Pfizer Inc.'s rival medicine Celebrex.

In a statement Wednesday, Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford said Graham had violated long-standing procedures for publishing scientific findings when he submitted his research to a medical journal without FDA clearance.

Grassley said Crawford's statement appeared intended to intimidate a witness on the eve of a hearing.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) cautioned fellow senators to keep an open mind, saying: "Today some are trying to punish one drug company for acting appropriately within the framework of our regulatory system."

But Grassley said Vioxx was the second example this year of the FDA not having proper respect for it own scientists. Another FDA reviewer, Dr. Andrew Mosholder, had warned antidepressants were linked to suicidal behavior in pediatric patients, but supervisors initially kept him from making those views public.

"Now we have scientists in this particular (Vioxx) case who are being harassed within the agency because of sticking to their own science," Grassley said.

Grassley also faulted Merck for aggressively marketing Vioxx for nearly two years between submitting results of a trial to the FDA in June of 2000 showing a higher incidence of cardiac problems with Vioxx and the FDA approving a new label detailing those risks in April 2002.

"A blockbuster drug became a blockbuster disaster," Grassley said.

Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin, in written comments, said the company followed "a rigorous scientific process at every step of the way with Vioxx."

"Over the past six years, we have promptly disclosed results of numerous Merck-sponsored studies to the FDA, physicians, the scientific community and the media," Gilmartin said.

[mikey23545]

You people really need to learn the difference between legitimate concerns and personal injury attorneys' hot air...

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

How do you propose to pay for research?

Research for what? More drugs that consume an astronomical advertising budget to convince me that I need them?

Maybe instead of spending all that money on advertising, they should be spending it on educating our medical proffessionals. Or on research. I guess I feel like the doctors are the ones that should convincing me that I need drugs, and it should based on my medical need rather than someone's profit margin or the effectiveness of their advertising campaign. Besides, I find it scary that drug research and development is driven by what will be the most profitable rather than what will have the largest medical impact.

[Ghostof]

"My HMO Tried to Kill Me!"


I had to take a second look at that. Thought it read:

"My HOMO Tried to Kill Me!"

[ptlyon]

Does that remind you of a story?

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Research for what? More drugs that consume an astronomical advertising budget to convince me that I need them?

Maybe instead of spending all that money on advertising, they should be spending it on educating our medical proffessionals. Or on research. I guess I feel like the doctors are the ones that should convincing me that I need drugs, and it should based on my medical need rather than someone's profit margin or the effectiveness of their advertising campaign. Besides, I find it scary that drug research and development is driven by what will be the most profitable rather than what will have the largest medical impact.

You have several concerns, but you didn't address my question at all.

You believe drugs should be handed out when people are ill. How do you propose to fund such an endeavor?

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

You have several concerns, but you didn't address my question at all.

You believe drugs should be handed out when people are ill. How do you propose to fund such an endeavor?

Excuse me? When did I say anything should be handed out? Put words in people's mouths much? Apparently you've misinterpreted what I've said.

I don't know how they should pay for research. I won't even pretend to understand how pharmaceutical companies handle that kind of thing. I do know that drugs have been researched and developed for ages without these mass marketing campaigns and without it being a financial jackpot for the companies involved. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't make money. I just think there's something morally lacking in the way they've decided to increase their profit margin. They've neglected the effort to make medical milestones, in the name of creating drugs that will they can market to the everyday Joe to cure illnesses that are mild at best and non-existant at worst.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Excuse me? When did I say anything should be handed out? Put words in people's mouths much? Apparently you've misinterpreted what I've said.

Evidently, I did. You said:


"Drugs shouldn't be "sold", they should be a product medical neccessity."

If they shouldn't be sold, then they should be handed out, right?

Unless, you meant they shouldn't be marketed, which is wrong (IMO) as well. If one drug does the same as another and costs less, I want to know about it. If one drug is similar to another and has either benefits or detriments then I want to know about it. That is the jist of advertising.


Now, I agree that Pharmys are out of control, but I don't think we should exclude them from free enterprise.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Evidently, I did. You said:


"Drugs shouldn't be "sold", they should be a product medical neccessity."

If they shouldn't be sold, then they should be handed out, right?

I guess the quotation marks didn't make it clear that I wasn't referring to "sold" in the literal or common sense. I meant sold as in marketed or advertised. As in "I'm going to sell you on an idea".

It just seems wrong that the company that makes money off of this drug is the same company that is trying to convince me that I need it. It's not a Big Mac or a pair of Nikes. It's preying on a person's poor health or fear of poor health, and the emotions that go with it. I'm just of the opinion that the only one that should be convincing me to take a certain drug is the doctor who has my health in his best interest.

I'm not so naive to think that they don't market (sell) their drugs to doctors either. I am however, still naive enough to believe that my doctor won't prescribe me a drug simply because they had an excellent marketing strategy. It's just the idea that these drug companies have created a mindset where people are going into a doctor's office already thinking they know what they need in terms of prescription medicine. Besides, mass-marketing may give people a false impression of what works better. Someone might say, Drug X is on TV all of the time, they must be doing well and it must be more effective than Drug Y that I've barely heard of. Then they go online and order Drug X based on that.

[beavis]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

You believe drugs should be handed out when people are ill. How do you propose to fund such an endeavor?

I think you answered your own question. People need medication when they are sick. They don't need it pimped to them on tv every night during the 6 o'clock news. There's a pill for everything anymore, a huge problem with todays society IMO.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by jspchief

I am however, still naive enough to believe that my doctor won't prescribe me a drug simply because they had an excellent marketing strategy.

I don't think I would be that naive. Doctors get a good portion of their on-going education/ new information from Big Pharma. There is also a lot of evidence that there are incentives to prescribe new medicines, even though there are older, cheaper (read non-patented) medicines available that are just as effective.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by beavis

I think you answered your own question. People need medication when they are sick. They don't need it pimped to them on tv every night during the 6 o'clock news. There's a pill for everything anymore, a huge problem with todays society IMO.

Then ban all over the counter meds and advertising. After all, you don't "need" OTC drugs

[BIG_DADDY]

The disclaimers alone should be enough to discourage anyone. They call everything a disease now so you feel you need a medicine to deal with it. Somehow recently acid indegestion got tuned into acid reflux DISEASE. I love the disclaimers though.

In some cases side effects including a bloody nose, stomach cramps, diarrhea, vomiting and even death have occured from using this product so let your physician know if you have any problems taking this medication. People who are too short, too tall, have high blood pressure, liver of kidney problems or people who drink alchohol or caffeinated beverages are discouraged form using this product.

Good god what else do you need to know not to stick that shit in your body? Problem is people don't question their doctors they just take their advice and the pill of the day. You ultimately are responsible for your own health, smarten up and figure out how to correct the problem instead of taking your doctors drug of the day to treat the symptom. JMO

[Frosty]

I remember a few years ago there was ad for an anti-anxiety drug and one of the side effects was "uncontrollable oily stools".

Personally, I think that little side effect would counter-act the drug.

[KcMizzou]

Originally Posted by arc

I remember a few years ago there was ad for an anti-anxiety drug and one of the side effects was "uncontrollable oily stools".

Personally, I think that little side effect would counter-act the drug.

Yeah... that would tend to cause anxiety, wouldn't it.

[Inspector]

I hate oily stools.

Thye can cause you to slip off and hit your head on the bathroom floor.