” Gueriguian testified that Eli Lilly knew as early as 1998 that Zyprexa increased the risk of developing diabetes, but did not issue warnings about those effects until 2007… ‘Simply put, it’s putting profit over the concern of the consumer‘, Gueriguian said “.
Around half of all clinical trials have not been published; some trials have not even been registered. If action is not taken urgently, information on what was done and what was found in trials could be lost forever, leading to bad treatment decisions, missed opportunities for good medicine, and trials being repeated unnecessarily.
In 2008, in a little village in France, the mayor decided to take action and to move to bio food for their school… so that tomorrow, their children will not accuse them…
For the first time ever, our children are growing up less healthy than we are. As the rate of cancer, infertility and other illnesses linked to environmental factors climbs upward each year, we must ask ourselves: why is this happening?
The Diethylstilbestrol tragedy thorough historical review
For a thorough historical review of the DES tragedy take a moment and read this lengthy call for tighter FDA regulation of the drug industry. The DES story makes a compelling case!
DES Action USA commented: ” Thank you for this call for stronger government regulation of pharmaceuticals. The DES tragedy makes a compelling case and you tell the story well. Adding insult to injury, it isn’t correct to say that in 1971 the FDA banned DES for most uses. Sadly, DES was only ‘contraindicated’ so it was well into the 1970s before doctors stopped prescribing DES to pregnant women! Either they didn’t get the word, or they felt they knew better than government regulators. Many doctors now dismiss DES exposure as ‘not a problem anymore’ but millions of us were exposed before birth and live with the health problems it caused. We fervently wish similar tragedies wouldn’t happen again – but sadly, the DES lessons learned are being ignored. ”
Jill Escher, from Prenatal Exposures Never Die, the blog about epigenetics, autism, and the multigenerational tragedy of prenatal pharmaceutical use, wrote to the FDA on April 11. 2013.
“ I am writing to urgently request that the FDA take immediate steps to suspend approval for the prenatal drug Diclegis pending appropriate safety testing for impacts to fetal germ cells, the precursor cells to the baby’s egg or sperm. In addition, I urge the FDA to take immediate steps to issue warnings regarding potential germline impact of all prenatally administered drugs… ”
A new pregnancy drug, the Diclegis® pill manufactured by Duchesnay Inc. Canada, will enter pharmacies this June 2013. This week (see tweet), in its news release, the FDA stated: ” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Diclegis (doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride) to treat pregnant women experiencing nausea and vomiting “.
The “Morning Sickness Drug“, was called Bendectin between 1978 and 1983, and had over 300 lawsuits filed against the Merrell Dow pharmaceutical company, claiming damages for babies with deformities born to mothers who took the drug. The wide range of birth defects attributed to it were: limb and other musculoskeletal deformities; facial and brain damage; defects of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and genital-urinary systems; blood disorders and cancer.
With many thanks to Judith Kavanaugh for warning me about this unbelievable but true news !!!
Women and Canadian Drug Policy, by Anne Rochon Ford and Diane Saibil
In recent years, heated debate has surrounded the pharmaceutical industry and how it has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation, regulation, and promotion of its own products. As a result, drugs are produced, regulated, marketed, and used in ways that infiltrate many aspects of everyday life. The nature and extent of this infiltration, and how this has special meaning for women, are at the core of The Push to Prescribe.
The book delves into the world of prescription drugs in Canada, and considers the impact on the health of women. From the inadequate testing of many drugs on women in clinical trials, to the sometimes questionable portrayal of women in illegal prescription drug advertising, Canadian drug policy has not always paid attention to how women and men are affected differently.
This is an essential resource for a variety of courses in Health Sciences, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacology, Public Policy, Public Health, Health Policy, Women’s Studies, Women’s Health, as well as many Social Science courses in areas like Sociology and Political Science. It will also be of interest to a general audience, health professional organizations, government health associations, and consumer and women’s groups.
presents an approach that combines compelling evidence with social, political, and gender-based analyses
discusses the complexity surrounding women and pharmaceuticals and uses the best evidence to argue for changes that better reflect women’s needs in public health policy and that ensure those who are best suited to make these determinations are included in policy-making
Do antidepressant medications work the way they are supposed to?
Antidepressants are increasingly being used to treat depression in pregnancy in Canada despite their lack of approval for this use by Health Canada or the US FDA. Recent scientific and public attention has focused on an increased risk for infants, and this has led to conflicting advice about the use of SSRI/SNRI antidepressants (such as Prozac, Paxil, Effexor, or other related drugs) during pregnancy. Some suggest avoiding all exposures, while others recommend use in order to avoid harm to mothers and infants from untreated depression.
In 2009, Dr. Barbara Mintzes presented what she and colleagues found in a systematic evaluation of all available studies comparing women with depression who did or did not take antidepressants during pregnancy. Their goal was to find an answer to the controversial and urgent clinical question: do pregnant women benefit from taking antidepressants?
A new campaignAll trials registered, all results reported – supported by the Medical Research Council (publicly funded organisation in the UK dedicated to improving human health) – calls for the results of all clinical trials to be made public.
Sir Iain Chalmers, Coordinator of the James Lind Initiative, has strong words on researchers who hide trial results and ends his post by saying: “ If action is not taken urgently by research funders and regulators, information on what was done and what was found in trials could be lost forever, leading to bad treatment decisions, unnecessary repetition of trials, and missed opportunities for good medical practice. ”
How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients
Last February 18th, 2013, at Town Hall Seattle, Dr. Ben Goldacre talked about his book, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients, in which he discusses the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the global healthcare system and argues that pharmaceutical companies hide negative studies and use questionable testing and intensive lobbying to get what they want, regardless of whether the drugs they produce are good for patients. Watch the video (1 hour, 26 minutes) .