A killer painkiller?

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…

**************************************************************
                            OUTRAGE! 

Billion-dollar drug company hides astounding discovery of a
natural cancer killer that’s 10,000 times stronger than chemo -
but without the side effects! Deep within the Amazon grows a tree
that could literally revolutionize what you, your doctor, and the
rest of the world thinks about cancer treatment and chances of
survival. The future has never looked more promising...just
visit below to read more: 

http://www.youreletters.com/t/66000/3047667/645689/0/

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

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.

Health Disclaimer!  The information provided on this site should not be construed as personal medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken based solely on the contents of this site. Readers should consult appropriate health professionals on any matter relating to their health and well-being.

Copyright © 1994 - 2005 by Dr. Douglass' Real Health Breakthrough's