Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
could it not be money and greed.....Drug safety is a simple matter of majority rule, of 51% telling the other 49% that deadly drugs are safe and necessary. And that majority is fueled by profit, not science.
My wonderful OPC's were first in France for 40 some yrs or longer before they got to the US in 1995. Could be the minds of pharma and profits and stockholders. Perhaps too americans put so much faith in more and more money. Some will take it with them.
the arrival of meds and treatments in USA has nothing to do with $s and Cents. It goes deeper than that.
could it not be money and greed.....Drug safety is a simple matter of majority rule, of 51% telling the other 49% that deadly drugs are safe and necessary. And that majority is fueled by profit, not science.
so that explains why so many drugs are recalled or proceedures stopped, is that what you expect us to believe?
so that explains why so many drugs are recalled or proceedures stopped, is that what you expect us to believe?
believe what you like...as I do ..if you look into the lists of ingredients on most of the stuff we use daily, and see what exactly is in these products , even baby products like baby colognes you might be in for a shock. Have a read also with a study on these companies Pharmaceuticals, biotech (Monsanto and DuPont), and chemical companies (Dow, Bayer, and ExxonMobil) are growing even bigger under the protection of FDA:from Harvard , its worth a read..
Last edited by dizzybint; 10-29-2016 at 08:52 AM..
And even with the so-called lengthy and rigorous testing that the FDA does, there are mistakes and those mistakes often have grave consequences. No system is perfect. Some systems just cost more (in terms of both human lives and dollars) to yield as sketchy outcomes. (And, post release too, just because a drug or device has been 'tested and approved', it should still be considered 'conditional' for a long time. Many issues have been discovered at that stage with many drugs and devices even with the lengthy approval process, etc. required by the FDA.)
That is not to say that pre-approval testing itself should not occur or be rigorous but I think all that testing should be conducted completely outside the auspices of the drug companies rallying for the approval of said drugs. I think there is probably still too much drug manufacturer influence in the process (not just here but we are speaking of the US right now). There certainly is in the quest for new drugs in the first place - money talks, the potential for big bucks talks.
This is only partially true:the truth is: America takes longer to test and make sure a treatment of med is as safe as possibe. I remember way back when, hubby had 3 angio balloon treatments but stints were not available here at the time. His cardiologist was the one who told us this: he said they were being used in Europe but not approved yet in USA. It was about a year later they became available here. Thank goodness hubby had never had a heart problem since the last angio plasty and never had a reason for a stint. This is the case with many meds as well. That is one reason some meds are cheaper in other countries. We do more testing and research.
What is a "stint" as used in this post?
Yes, part of the reason for drugs and procedures being available in other countries long before here is the testing required for approval here. In a way, that is good; we can be fairly sure that the drug or procedure is safe!
Yes, part of the reason for drugs and procedures being available in other countries long before here is the testing required for approval here. In a way, that is good; we can be fairly sure that the drug or procedure is safe!
I might have meant a Stent....
A stent is a small mesh tube that's used to treat narrow or weak arteries
If anyone is interested... have a look at "Baby Cologne" by Johnson and Johnson.... check the ingredients and every single one is dangerous including the perfume of which they dont have to state whats in it.... horrific.. this is the baby perfume link. and you can see ingredients.. easy to check them out.. this is whats allowed under what some think is regulated and for babies... no matter what they try and tell us about amounts or trace amounts, its still a dangerous cocktail to be ingested into a babies body.. This isnt to pick on J&J other companies are also making this junk to put on babies.. some very well known companies too... how low can they sink to make a fortune from childrens health.. Its bad enough adults being conned into buying some products but children cant choose.. I just checked the safety tips after the ingredients, laughable really..
Oftentimes things treatments do appear in Europe long before they are available here. They have been strictly tested and deemed safe yet we, over here, are denied these treatments because they are "untested"???
As we've discussed before, regular allergy shots are beyond being a pain. They all start out at a low dose, the same for everyone, and build up. This requires you to get shots once or twice WEEKLY and most people don't have time for that. Also, because one size does not fit all, they require you to sit around in the office for about 20 minutes afterwards to make sure you don't have a reaction to the one size fits all shots. It can take a year before they even start to work!
The shots I had were wonderful and you went weekly at first but needed no appointment and no waiting around. They were called provocative neutralization. No waiting around to see if you had an adverse reaction because the dosage was tailored to your needs. Since you started out at your top dose, you started to notice the difference within a few weeks! I guess that kind of treatment isn't widely available anymore, sadly. The allergists I know of who still use it don't accept insurance anymore.
But at least there's something sort of new that could be on its way here. It's used in Europe and apparently the allergists here who make a lot of money giving allergy shots, aren't all that much in favor of it.
Still, not all allergists will welcome the tablets. That is because they make money giving shots, while the tablets would be prescribed like other pills.
Dr. Skoner, professor at Temple University and West Virginia University and also a consultant to Merck states that the American doctors are frightened of this treatment, even paranoid. Merck would be the producer of the tablets if we can ever get them here in the USA.
Here's another article that cites the shame in what we have available here compared to what people in Europe can get. Apparently now we only have drops for ragweed? Maybe one or two other allergens? While in Europe the drops (or tablets) that you can take at home have been available for a long time. It saves money, it helps people who don't have time to go and get allergy shots, it's easier on kids than getting shots, yet we can't seem to get this method approved over here. What is going on?
And even with the so-called lengthy and rigorous testing that the FDA does, there are mistakes and those mistakes often have grave consequences. No system is perfect. Some systems just cost more (in terms of both human lives and dollars) to yield as sketchy outcomes. (And, post release too, just because a drug or device has been 'tested and approved', it should still be considered 'conditional' for a long time. Many issues have been discovered at that stage with many drugs and devices even with the lengthy approval process, etc. required by the FDA.)
That is not to say that pre-approval testing itself should not occur or be rigorous but I think all that testing should be conducted completely outside the auspices of the drug companies rallying for the approval of said drugs. I think there is probably still too much drug manufacturer influence in the process (not just here but we are speaking of the US right now). There certainly is in the quest for new drugs in the first place - money talks, the potential for big bucks talks.
The FDA does not test drugs. Ever.
Let me write that again: THE FDA DOES NOT TEST DRUGS FOR SAFETY OR ANYTHING ELSE.
The drug's manufacturer runs all clinical trials and submits the best of the best as evidence that the drug is successful. And the FDA takes the drug makers WORD that the drug is safe. And then approves it.
Unless the drug maker PAYS the FDA to FAST TRACK APPROVAL. Then it gets approved immediately.
To recap: Drug company A makes a drug, runs 25 clinical trials. 20 trials say the drug does not work, 15 say it is unsafe, and 4 show it has minimal effect on the health condition and that it is safe.
Drug company A submits those 4 as proof the drug is safe and that it works. FDA says OK, rubber stamps it, and PRESTO drug is available.
Also, drug manufacturers do NOT have a prove a drug is better than a similar drug already available. The standard is to show it is better than a placebo. So all the newer drugs could be less effective than older drugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
