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.

Biotech / Medical : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tommysdad who wrote (22831)	6/29/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Thalidomide has been shown to work for other diseases. The drug showed problems with pregnant women. There are other drugs on the market that are dangerous when taken with other drugs or when taken if the woman is pregnant. That's why they have warning labels. So hold on there skippy. I'm doing my research and I'll get back to y'all soon.

To: tommysdad who wrote (22831)	6/29/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Here you go: cato.org cato.org cato.org This should be enough to clarify how the FDA restricts the access to life saving drugs but for some reason I think that some people when faced with the evidence just won't concede to the point that the FDA needs a serious overhaul. But don't worry, i'm still working!

To: tommysdad who wrote (22831)	7/8/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

***My response to why the FDA is responsible for killing people**** According to the National Center for Policy Analysis who issued a press release on FEb 3, 1997: "The time reguired for the FDA testing process has increased significantly since 1963: The time required for clinical testing has increased by 140 percent, from 2.5 years in 1963-65 to six years 1991-93. The review time has increased 41 percent from 1.7 years to 2.4 years The total time from laboratory production of a drug to FDA approval has increased 156 percent, from 6.3 years in 63-65 to 16.1 years in 1988-90." More than 1,230 U.S. deaths from overdoses of sedatives might have been prevented during the five years a safer drug was approved in Britian but not by the FDA. Beta-blockers effective in preventing heart attacks and coronary deaths might have saved 10000 to 20000 lives a year had they been approved sooner. An estimated 1000 lives were lost when FDA red tape prohibited the manufaturer from selling a defibrillator that it had already approved SOurce: Noel Campbell, author of the study. Making Drugs Safe and Available without the FDA is available from the NCPA at 972/386-6272 www.public-policy.org/~ncpa From a Mona Charen article 12-28-94 "The FDA's DAvid Kessler is Running Amok" From a Competitive Enterprise Institute study estimated that as many as 15,000 people died unnecessarily during the FDA's review of the drug misoprostrol which allevates gastric ulcers. 22000 heart patients might have lived but for the fda's delay in approving streptokinase, which dissolves blood clots. AS well, the FDA suppresses information about potentially beneficial new uses for drugs already on the market. Asprin, for example, has been shown in study after study to prevent heart attacks when taken daily. UYet in 1989, the FDA forbade manufactures from advertising this benefit on the grounds that asprin was not labeled as heart medicine. *Merck found that its hypertension drug Vasotec was also highly effective against congestive heart diseas. But FDA barred Merck's sales force form informing doctors of this effect. The research of this beneficial effect came from none else than the National Heart, Lung, and blood institute, a FEDERAL AGENCY!!!! Does these examples now help support my thesis????