Comments on: Top Diabetes Doc: Drugmaker Threatened Me

Dr. John Buse Says He Was Warned In 1999 That He'd Be Held Responsible For Hurting Drug Sales

[drinuk]

God Bless these three brave men. This is just a very small example of the way in which Big Pharma, threatens and bullies the medical profession worldwide. They are the scum of this planet, villians of the first order. Furthermore it is a glaring example of their incestuous relationship with the FDA and similar governing authorities around the world.

To all those medical professionals currently in Big Pharma's pocket and singing their tune, the caveat is...You are being watched, jump off the bandwagon before you are pushed off.

Whoever is elected to be the next incumbent of the White House and resonsible for the Nations welfare, they would be well advised to put Big Pharma, the FDA and corrupt medical professionals at the top of their hit list. Iraq pales into insignificance compared to the Danger to World Health caused by these evil money grabbing people.

[jun3968]

I do have some concerns about Avandia but what I really want to know is; when the studied was conducted what was dosage used and how long did the patients use the drug? Because I have been on and off Avandia for the past 4 years. I haven't any problems with the drug, currently I am taking Avandamet. I have read some of the study information but it is really confusing to me, is there any way that someone can break it down into plain english, so normal people can understand the jargon. Thanks

[iceman_1960]

"Big pharmaceuticals are right up there with the arms dealers."

- The Constant Gardener, 2005 film.

[brianbwb-2009]

The part not being discussed here is the threat of a lawsuit for raising a legitimate concern, based on statistical evidence, of the harmful side effects of a drug. the company thought it better to hide this, and threaten the doctor that brought it to light.
Had I been on the jury, the company would have lost the case, been made to pay the doctor's legal fees, and his time loss, based on billable hours, for fighting the case, and a multi million dollar award as penalty and warning not to continue this practice.

Should the doctor be able to prove the threat, the FDA should step in on his behalf and apply the same sanctions against the company. Is it not their job to protect the consumers against just this sort of thing?

[andor3]

It's all about trust. Patients cannot know all the details of the drugs. Although I try: I look everything up in PDR and question my doctors. More than once I've caught something that was mis-prescribed.

Point is, if you can't trust your doctor, can't trust the FDA, can't trust the PDR even, yet taking no drugs can be a bad choice--you are in a no-win situation. You can't even make a fair assessment of the risks you incur.

The system needs to be changed to restore trust and allow patients to understand and evaluate the risks of treatment options.

I can't fault big pharma too much--even if they are doing evil things, it is only because they are part of the system. Any pharma CEO who tried to do it differently would likely be on the street because he is not doing his job which, sadly, is really only to increase shareholder value without breaking the law.

[toldyouso21]

correction:

Because many companies can copy a product once it loses its patent, there are TOO many descriptions. The PDR will usually show the brand name drug and maybe a few generic examples--be sure to match like with like. For instance if you are taking a capsule--look up the capsule NOT the tablet. there is a difference, especially in how fast one is assimilated into the system. if you look at liquids, then know if it is a parenteral or not (injectable) If it is an IV drug, then you are under medical care when you get the drug, the contraindications etc, can differ depending on the form the drug is in.

Finally, be very wary of drs who prescribe medicine by age----this does not make sense. Medicine is made by potency to body wt ratio--this means that more important than a persons age is how much they weigh. The larger the person, usually the higher the potency they can take and maybe even the more of a product they may need--while with other drugs, adipose or fat tissue could pose a problem as some medicines are stored in excess fat and could be risky.

The real danger with the PDR is the TMI--the information will scare many, if they do not understand the risk levels and circumstances for some of the info.

[toldyouso21]

toldyouso21

You are providing wonderful information. Keep up the good work!

I'd like to point out another use for the PDR. It is the description and picture of what your medication should look like. This part keeps the pharmacists honest or at least careful.
Posted by barbaraf4 at 10:18 PM : Jun 06, 2007


YOu are right to a point. the PDR usually only shows the description of the brand name product. After a license runs out, a generic company can deconstruct a drug and try to market a generic version. Because the hard research is already done, they just have to figure out how a product is put together and duplicate it to a point. This is accomplished with a C of A which tells how much of each active ingredients, and stabilizers/preservatives and in what range they must fall. The generic company then files for a license. When they make their product the bottle and pills must look different from the original brand. Because many companies can copy a product without a patent, there are two many descriptions. The PDR will usually show the brand name drug. If you do not have the brand name --you can look it up in the PDR and it will also give the chemical or generic name. You can review that to determine what the product must be like. Drug id is very important since it has been determined that hundreds of thousands of pharmacies dispense the wrong products each year.

[barbaraf4]

toldyouso21

You are providing wonderful information. Keep up the good work!

I'd like to point out another use for the PDR. It is the description and picture of what your medication should look like. This part keeps the pharmacists honest or at least careful.

[toldyouso21]

At least that is on the fact sheet they gave me when I went in to check. So based on that I am still on Avandia.
Posted by arty1sgt at 06:49 PM : Jun 06, 2007


do you take a diuretic? because if you do, then you are one of the ones that gain fluid --you just don't realize it due to the drugs you take to decrease edema.

[arty1sgt]

The Veterans Administration has determined that since the difference in the study was only 14 heart attacks (86 out 0f 14,000 on the drug and 72 out of 12,000 not on the drug) that there is no problem. They also say that people with diabetes are already in danger of heart attack anyway. They recommend that if your blood sugar is well controlled and you don't retin fluid stay with Avandia. They also recommend if you already have heart disease or retain fluid you may want to change drugs treatment. At least that is on the fact sheet they gave me when I went in to check. So based on that I am still on Avandia.