I'm going to repost something I did a few months back, concerning drug trials. chrmdrx1971, I'm surprised you still think (after working in a
pharmacy) that side effects aren't studied or noted?
Quick recap of how clinical trials work:
Phase I - This is the initial introduction to humans. This study concentrates on how the drug is absorbed, metabolized, and excreted, and the number
of subjects is between 40 and 80; the patients do not have the disease for which the drug is indicated.
Phase II - Similar to phase I, but this time in patients who do suffer from the disease. As a general rule, this group rarely exceeds 1200 or so in
number. In addition, most phase II studies are randomized trials. One group of patients will receive the experimental drug, while a second "control"
group will receive a standard treatment or placebo and these studies are also usually "blind"-- neither the patients nor the researchers know who is
getting the experimental drug.
Phase III - After efficacy has been established, the drug is then given to a larger number of patients (usually around 3000) in different clinical
settings to determine its safety, effectiveness and appropriate dosage. Assuming the drug is considered safe (in addition to being effective), it's
after this phase that the drug is submitted to the FDA for approval. Again, this phase is randomized and blinded as a rule.
Phase IV - After approval, the pharm. company will continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various
populations, any side effects associated with long-term use, and its impact on quality of life.
It's generally only during (and after) Phase IV trials that we begin to see the long term effects. Also, the FDA can make a conditional approval -
that is, the drug will be approved only if company promises to run Phase IV studies afterwards .
Which brings us to...
Drugs will sometimes kill people. This is of course tragic...but as Amorymeltzer very accurately pointed out, the ratio of drugs:death compared to
terrorist acts:death shows that the comparison is unfair at best.
For the record:
I was never employed by the FDA.
I was, however, contracted by an independent research organization (CRO) to verify, analyze and tabulate clinical trial data; I'm very aware of the
failings of both the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, but the point remains: These drugs generally do far more good than harm.
and i found out that taking this drug long term could increase the chances of dying early as a result of a heart attack.. Pharmaceutical
companies are getting away with murder LITTERALLY.
How on earth do you figure that?! Do you know what the definition of murder actually is? Sorry, but that entire statement is ridiculous.
If for no other reason than the obvious:
Dead people do not need, or buy, drugs.
That'd be defeating the "object", don't you think? Perhaps more importantly though, if there IS a warning like that, it's giving YOU, the
patient, the opportunity to make an informed decision - do the benefits of that drug outweight the risks? It's actually for YOUR benefit that such
warnings are given. It's hardly murderous.