It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Vioxx Could Return to the Market

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
An FDA advisory panel has ruled that Vioxx and other related Cox 2 inhibitor painkilling drugs can remain on the market. Vioxx, which was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer, may return to pharmacy shelves pending discussions between Merck and the FDA. The panel found that while these drugs do increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, the danger posed is not great enough to ban the entire class of drugs.
 



money.cnn.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) - While the painkillers Celebrex, Bextra, and Vioxx significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular problems, the danger is not great enough to justify taking the drugs off the market, according to an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.

The advisory committee voted on whether to stop sales of the drugs Friday during a third and final day of considering the risks associated with taking Cox II selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

The votes are non-binding.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The risk these drugs actually pose to the health of users probably needs more research; however the cost/benefit analysis should probably be something decided by doctors and patients rather than the federal government. Patients should look into safer over-the-counter drugs or narcotic pain killers if their risk of heart disease is already elevated, but the evidence so far is too weak to totally ban the drugs as an option.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This just fantastic, now they are back in the market, so with the new law against law suit, guess what........more power to corporations.

I took viox and bextra and I end up in emergency with a "panic attack" not hart attack, I was using them for about 3 years before and after my major surgery.

So sometimes I wonder if the palpitations and "panic attacks" were the result of their use but to late now.

Funny they tell you that the drugs are bad for you but the will be better at the end even if it give you a hart attack in the process.


People should boycott them.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
They're not wasting anytime, are they? The new laws will protect them now. Viva la corporacion.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Sorry - posted this story before I saw this submission...

Vioxx Back Despite Dangers
Posted by: soficrow On: Fri February, 18 2005 @ 10:32 GMT

www.atsnn.com...






posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Now that it is widely known that these drugs can cause elevated risk of heart disease, I see no problem in letting patients and doctors decide whether to use them. The fact that this was previously unknown is a problem and opens the drug the companies up to lawsuits regarding use prior to the revelations (rightly). Many prescription drugs have the possiblity of very bad side effects and that's the reason why they aren't provided otc, but only provided by a doctor's prescription after a careful weighting of the cost/benefit balance.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The fact that this was previously unknown is a problem and opens the drug the companies up to lawsuits regarding use prior to the revelations (rightly).




The point is that the dangers were known. Much actual research is posted here at ATS. For starters:


Merck and Vioxx: A Twisted Tale of Cover-ups, Pork and Profits

U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

Bush Pushes to Limit Class-Action Suits

FDA to Create Drug Safety Oversight Board





Many prescription drugs have the possiblity of very bad side effects and that's the reason why they aren't provided otc, but only provided by a doctor's prescription after a careful weighting of the cost/benefit balance.




Believe it or not, some people expect doctors to be concerned about health, not a cost benefit analysis.





.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Believe it or not, some people expect doctors to be concerned about health, not a cost benefit analysis.


I meant the cost/benefit to health not a monetary analysis. Believe it or not many people may want to take this drug despite it may be risky to some. This decision should be made by the doctor and patient, not the government.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
.... Well now very interesting, it takes alot longer to decide on risks then just a few months, this could backfire in a big way, except this time the drug companies are off the hook.
I am a dependant on certain meds(Asthma), and if something like this came up I don't know what I would do(I would probably have to move into the Hospitol
), when is the supposed "Independant" drug review board supposed to start up? Methinks that the Cox 2 inhibitors could have been the very first case to iron out wrinkles in the system, not now anymore *sigh* looks like its still money first... they knew about potential probelms since 2000 and now this, I think someone should follow the money on this one, it could reveal alot of pertinent information.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The independent board review group is part of the FDA and part of the money that the FDA uses for research for drugs is also pay by the donations of....... yes you get it pharmaceuticals also.

The irony should render you speechless.
and now they pharmaceuticals will be protected thanks to new laws to give them more power.

Viva la corporacion.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I find it funny how these effects come out after huge doses are taken and those affected are usually former smokers. If you watch these commericials they do anything but cover up. half the commericial is the warnings of the drug or they don't even tell you what the drug is for. Also when you get the drug there are papers with warnings about the drug. How many people read them? Why don't people sue the FDA? they ok'd the drug. Therefore responsibility is passed to the government. Isn't that how FDA approval works?




top topics



 
0

log in

join