If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The dangers of conventional medicine .Why alternative medicine grows
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/bu...&oref=slogi n
Another Study Finds Heart Risks in a Diabetes Drug An independent analysis of thousands of older people with diabetes found that those treated with the widely used drug Avandia had significantly elevated risks of heart attack and death. ....... ..........The new study concludes that Avandia users had a 60 percent increased risk of heart failure, a 40 percent increased risk of heart attacks and a 30 percent increased risk of death compared with patients taking other oral diabetes medicines. .... Thanks Vince |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The dangers of conventional medicine .Why alternative medicine grows
"bigvince" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/bu...&oref=slogi n Another Study Finds Heart Risks in a Diabetes Drug An independent analysis of thousands of older people with diabetes found that those treated with the widely used drug Avandia had significantly elevated risks of heart attack and death. ....... ..........The new study concludes that Avandia users had a 60 percent increased risk of heart failure, a 40 percent increased risk of heart attacks and a 30 percent increased risk of death compared with patients taking other oral diabetes medicines. .... Thanks Vince Vince, why didn't you play a Mark Thorson? Making the title Drugs KILL!!! Just kidding. FDA: the data are inconclusive and we have added a boxed warning to the labeling. http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0525-05.htm Scientists, Public Health Advocates and Consumer Groups Demand Impartial FDA Review of Commonly Used Diabetes Drug Recent Study Finds Avandia Increases Risk of Heart Attack, Death WASHINGTON - MAY 25 - A coalition of scientific, public health and consumer organizations today issued a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude scientists with financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline from a panel reviewing the safety of the pharmaceutical giant's popular type 2 diabetes drug, Avandia. Earlier this week the FDA announced it would form the advisory panel in response to a New England Journal of Medicine article that found Avandia increases the risk of heart attacks by 43 percent and the risk of heart death by 64 percent. "The Avandia controversy raises once again the memory of Vioxx, which was approved by the FDA and then withdrawn from the market after tens of thousands of people died," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition member. "The FDA must demonstrate that it is serious about drug safety and making sure its outside experts are impartial." The FDA also issued a public safety alert this week advising users of the drug to consult with their doctors about potential cardiovascular risks. The FDA disclosed it had known about the Avandia's potential risk since August 2006. There is currently no law requiring the FDA to appoint members with no conflicts of interest to its scientific advisory panels. On May 9, the Senate defeated an amendment to an FDA reform bill that would have restricted the agency's use of experts with financial ties to drug makers. Joining the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter, which was delivered today to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, were the Center for Medical Consumers, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union, Government Accountability Project, National Research Center for Women & Families, National Women's Health Network, U.S. PIRG and WoodyMatters. The letter is attached below. ### The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org. ### May 24, 2007 Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach Food and Drug Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20856 Dear Dr. von Eschenbach, The American public is once again dismayed to discover that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a drug whose risks may vastly outweigh its benefits. A study released Monday, May 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that Avandia may significantly increase the risk of heart attacks. Since diabetics are already at high risk of cardiovascular events as a result of their disease, the possibility of a drug-related increased risk of heart attack calls into question the wisdom of the continued use of this drug, as well as the basis on which it was approved. In light of this study, and faltering public faith in the integrity of the FDA drug approval process, we write to urge you to ensure that the composition of any advisory committee that is being convened to review the safety of Avandia be free of any conflict of interest. At the minimum, no member of this committee should have had any financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia's maker, for the past 36 months. No law currently mandates that the FDA use only non-conflicted scientists on its advisory committees. But history teaches us that when scientists have conflicts of interest, the well being of the public may be compromised. Last December, a company-funded study of Avandia showed no increased heart attack risk when comparing rosiglitazone (Avandia) to metformin, a commonly prescribed generic drug widely used for glycemic control. Every author of that study either worked for or had financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline. In February 2005, ten of the 32 scientists on the advisory committee that considered the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, including Vioxx, had ties to the drug companies that made the products. The scientists voted to permit the companies to continue marketing the drugs, even though Vioxx had already been withdrawn from the market and had been implicated in tens of thousands of deaths. By staffing the Avandia advisory committee with scientists from diverse specialties who are non-conflicted, you will send a message that the FDA cares about avoiding conflicts of interest and evaluating drugs on the basis of unbiased scientific findings. The Avandia panel is just a first step in restoring public confidence. We urge you to take all steps necessary, including an expanded outreach to Schools of Public Health, to ensure that all future FDA advisory committees include only non-conflicted voting members, and to drastically curb the use of waivers to permit members with conflicts to participate on these committees. Very truly yours, Paul Brown Consumer Health Care Advocate U.S. PIRG Mark P. Cohen Food and Drug Safety Director Government Accountability Project Merrill Goozner Director, Integrity in Science Center for Science in the Public Interest Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Program Director Union of Concerned Scientists Arthur Aaron Levin, MPH Center for Medical Consumers Cindy Pearson Executive Director National Women's Health Network Bill Vaughan Consumers Union Kim Witczak WoodyMatters Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D. President National Research Center for Women & Families cc. vSteven Galson, M.D., M.Ph. Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Robert Meyer, M.D. Director, Office of Drug Evaluation II |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The dangers of conventional medicine .Why alternative medicine grows
Looks like GlaxoSmithKline is now in trouble with Avandia... Another Vioxx! A coalition of scientific, public health and consumer organizations today issued a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude scientists with financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline from a panel reviewing the safety of the pharmaceutical giant's popular type 2 diabetes drug, Avandia. This is "evidence based medicine" for you... Conflicts of interest are the rule! Science for sale... Yuri. "Jan Drew" wrote in message news "bigvince" wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/bu...&oref=slogi n Another Study Finds Heart Risks in a Diabetes Drug An independent analysis of thousands of older people with diabetes found that those treated with the widely used drug Avandia had significantly elevated risks of heart attack and death. ....... ..........The new study concludes that Avandia users had a 60 percent increased risk of heart failure, a 40 percent increased risk of heart attacks and a 30 percent increased risk of death compared with patients taking other oral diabetes medicines. .... Thanks Vince Vince, why didn't you play a Mark Thorson? Making the title Drugs KILL!!! Just kidding. FDA: the data are inconclusive and we have added a boxed warning to the labeling. http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0525-05.htm Scientists, Public Health Advocates and Consumer Groups Demand Impartial FDA Review of Commonly Used Diabetes Drug Recent Study Finds Avandia Increases Risk of Heart Attack, Death WASHINGTON - MAY 25 - A coalition of scientific, public health and consumer organizations today issued a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to exclude scientists with financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline from a panel reviewing the safety of the pharmaceutical giant's popular type 2 diabetes drug, Avandia. Earlier this week the FDA announced it would form the advisory panel in response to a New England Journal of Medicine article that found Avandia increases the risk of heart attacks by 43 percent and the risk of heart death by 64 percent. "The Avandia controversy raises once again the memory of Vioxx, which was approved by the FDA and then withdrawn from the market after tens of thousands of people died," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition member. "The FDA must demonstrate that it is serious about drug safety and making sure its outside experts are impartial." The FDA also issued a public safety alert this week advising users of the drug to consult with their doctors about potential cardiovascular risks. The FDA disclosed it had known about the Avandia's potential risk since August 2006. There is currently no law requiring the FDA to appoint members with no conflicts of interest to its scientific advisory panels. On May 9, the Senate defeated an amendment to an FDA reform bill that would have restricted the agency's use of experts with financial ties to drug makers. Joining the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter, which was delivered today to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, were the Center for Medical Consumers, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union, Government Accountability Project, National Research Center for Women & Families, National Women's Health Network, U.S. PIRG and WoodyMatters. The letter is attached below. ### The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org. ### May 24, 2007 Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach Food and Drug Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20856 Dear Dr. von Eschenbach, The American public is once again dismayed to discover that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a drug whose risks may vastly outweigh its benefits. A study released Monday, May 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that Avandia may significantly increase the risk of heart attacks. Since diabetics are already at high risk of cardiovascular events as a result of their disease, the possibility of a drug-related increased risk of heart attack calls into question the wisdom of the continued use of this drug, as well as the basis on which it was approved. In light of this study, and faltering public faith in the integrity of the FDA drug approval process, we write to urge you to ensure that the composition of any advisory committee that is being convened to review the safety of Avandia be free of any conflict of interest. At the minimum, no member of this committee should have had any financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia's maker, for the past 36 months. No law currently mandates that the FDA use only non-conflicted scientists on its advisory committees. But history teaches us that when scientists have conflicts of interest, the well being of the public may be compromised. Last December, a company-funded study of Avandia showed no increased heart attack risk when comparing rosiglitazone (Avandia) to metformin, a commonly prescribed generic drug widely used for glycemic control. Every author of that study either worked for or had financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline. In February 2005, ten of the 32 scientists on the advisory committee that considered the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, including Vioxx, had ties to the drug companies that made the products. The scientists voted to permit the companies to continue marketing the drugs, even though Vioxx had already been withdrawn from the market and had been implicated in tens of thousands of deaths. By staffing the Avandia advisory committee with scientists from diverse specialties who are non-conflicted, you will send a message that the FDA cares about avoiding conflicts of interest and evaluating drugs on the basis of unbiased scientific findings. The Avandia panel is just a first step in restoring public confidence. We urge you to take all steps necessary, including an expanded outreach to Schools of Public Health, to ensure that all future FDA advisory committees include only non-conflicted voting members, and to drastically curb the use of waivers to permit members with conflicts to participate on these committees. Very truly yours, Paul Brown Consumer Health Care Advocate U.S. PIRG Mark P. Cohen Food and Drug Safety Director Government Accountability Project Merrill Goozner Director, Integrity in Science Center for Science in the Public Interest Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D. Scientific Integrity Program Director Union of Concerned Scientists Arthur Aaron Levin, MPH Center for Medical Consumers Cindy Pearson Executive Director National Women's Health Network Bill Vaughan Consumers Union Kim Witczak WoodyMatters Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D. President National Research Center for Women & Families cc. vSteven Galson, M.D., M.Ph. Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Robert Meyer, M.D. Director, Office of Drug Evaluation II |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Horrible Day for Fish (Alternative Medicine, Believe it or Not) | javawizard | Kids Health | 16 | December 8th 07 11:25 PM |
Alternative/Complementary Medicine Is Here To Stay | Jan Drew | Kids Health | 0 | June 10th 07 03:34 AM |
Systems of medicine explained: Conventional, alternative, integrative, complementary and more | Jan Drew | Kids Health | 14 | May 2nd 06 03:33 PM |
Increased Popularity Of Alternative Medicine In U.S. | JanD | Kids Health | 3 | February 14th 06 07:32 AM |
Alternative Medicine and Your Child | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 16 | May 17th 05 10:45 PM |