Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (61127)	3/17/2005 5:22:37 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

So I took a look at that link Ray worstpills.org and number 2 item was citizen.org <Statement of Sidney Wolfe, M.D. regarding the FDA's decision to leave Crestor on the market (HRG Publication #1730) In Refusing to Ban Crestor, FDA Chooses Drug Company Over Safety The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) denial today of our petition to ban Crestor has a familiar ring in its similarity to the agency’s initial response to the dangers of many other drugs that were eventually banned. This response should give no comfort to either physicians or patients who are using or considering using Crestor. More than a year before Baycol was banned because of its uniquely high rate of rhabdomyolysis compared to other statins, the FDA was aware of this difference, as was the agency more than two years before the diabetes drug Rezulin was banned because of liver toxicity. Four years before Vioxx was banned, the FDA refused to even require a black box warning about known increased risk of heart attacks. > So, in seconds, way down here in NZ, I can say to my doctor that I don't want that dodgy treatment. Or, I can say it's okay by me. There's quite a bit of information there about Crestor and I dare say a lot more besides if I wanted it. The FDA gives a considered opinion and leaves it up to the doctors, the patients and the supplier, not to mention the courts, to sort the matter out as they see fit. I don't see the problem. I see more of a problem with the FDA proscribing things. It's common knowledge that messing with one's bodily chemistry is going to cause problems in various ways. The question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. Of course many treatments will be borderline for some, good for others and bad for others. That's just how it works. Big Pharma's job is to come up with patient benefits, establish the risks, and make a big load of profits, charging what the market will bear. Doctors need to determine an individual patient's risk benefit equation and help them understand that. Courts need to ensure there's no fraud, negligence or criminal activity. The FDA is a lowest common denominator vetting agency which in my opinion should be advisory rather than compulsory. Mqurice