A killer painkiller?

[Guest guest]

" WC Douglass " <realheath

 

A killer painkiller?

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:34:57 -0400

 

Daily Dose

 

Monday October 11, 2004

 

**************************************************************

 

 

Another one bites the dust

 

Finally, some encouraging news on the drug front: Starting now,

there will be ONE LESS OF THEM being peddled by prescription

to sicken you or send you to the morgue.

 

Pharmaceutical giant Merck, the world's third-largest

manufacturer of patented medicines, has recalled its blockbuster

arthritis drug, Vioxx, after halting a three-year trial of the drug in

mid-study. What prompted this " voluntary " (see-also, lawsuit-

dodging) withdrawal of the medication?

 

An increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke among test

subjects after 18 months on the drug. How much of an increase has

not yet been made public, if the stories in Reuters, the AP, and

other sources are any indication. It must have been pretty

significant, though, to scare a major drug maker into yanking a

$2.5 billion-a-year money machine from its inventory.

 

On the surface, this seems like a pretty upright thing to do, right?

After all, Merck could have simply slapped on a warning label and

continued marketing the drug for limited-time use. But here's the

seedy underbelly to the story: The trial in question was NOT an

arthritis trial, but rather a study on whether or not a 25-milligram

dose of Vioxx could stop the recurrence of colorectal polyps!

 

Now, how many times in the past have I blown my whistle about

drug companies secretly cross-marketing their poisons for ailments

other than what they're designed for? In case you haven't been

with me very long, here's a recap: Drug companies are forbidden

by law to market their drugs for anything other than the specific

ailment that their patent outlines. But because of loopholes in the

law (don't get me started on whether the Feds left them open on

purpose), nothing prevents DOCTORS from prescribing drugs for

whatever they see fit, for anything from hangnails to

hemmorrhoids…

 

And who's " educating " doctors about the multiple (read:

unauthorized) uses of various prescription medications? Who's

giving away all-expense-paid trips to " conferences " in Vegas,

tickets to the Super Bowl, and other enticements? Drug companies

— every one of them. The darker question is this: How does " Big

Pharma " find out whether their arthritis drug is also good for colon

polyps (or whatever)?

 

By conducting massive trials using vast numbers of human guinea

pigs. That's exactly what was going on here: A drug maker was

trying to find a way to make one of its marquis drugs even more

profitable (or give it a new life once its patent expires) by

gathering data it could use to " educate " doctors to prescribe it for

an unauthorized use.

 

As if this kind of thing isn't bad enough, drug makers aren't even

confining their quest for massive cross-marketing profits to

HUMANS. Keep reading…

 

**************************************************************

 

Man's best… Guinea pig?

 

Even as cynical as I am, I never saw this coming: Drug makers are

now pushing their patented medications for use by PETS.

 

Yep, you read that right: Fido will soon be able to take some of the

same drugs doctors might prescribe for you. The FDA has issued

its formal approval (no doubt buckling from drug industry

pressure) to veterinarians for the prescription of an antibiotic

designed for use in humans. No doubt, a cross-marketing study

showed that certain canine skin infections responded to the drug

(how else would they have discovered this?).

 

I wonder how they recruited test subjects for that trial? Did the

dogs sign their " informed consent " papers with a paw-print?

 

When humans experience side effects of drugs, whether in trials or

post-approval (and we do, constantly), we have legal recourses

available to us. In the event of drug trials, we've signed

agreements — and in the case of prescribed drugs, we're protected

by Federal trade and consumer protection laws (not really, but in

theory at least)…

 

But there's no such thing as a " pet court " out there. And it's not

like our dogs and cats can speak up and tell us about side effects

they may be experiencing. What if this trend spirals out of control?

What if " pet psychologists " (yes, they exist) start prescribing

antidepressants to animals and they become violent — or worse,

suicidal (like teens)?

 

Now don't misunderstand me — I'm for anything that helps man's

best friend. But given drug companies' track records at protecting

US from their chemicals, I don't have much faith in their

earnestness in protecting those that can't sue them — or even

complain.

 

 

Protecting both man and beast from the menace of medication,

 

William Campbell Douglass II, MD

 

********************