If I Had a Hammer...
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Cosmic Watercooler has an interesting blog post on the use of Zoloft and other SSRI's for treating depression. She notes that marketing often makes claims that aren't backed up by scientific testing. I wish that more attention was given to false advertising. It's depressing how greedy corporations seek to deceive the consumer. Maybe I need some Zoloft myself. 
Blog Tag: Link
Posted 11/09/2005 01:41:00 PM
L
On 11/09/2005 9:45 PM, 
Michelle said...
On 11/09/2005 11:22 PM, Candace said...
On 11/09/2005 11:48 PM, dkgoodman said...
On 11/10/2005 7:35 AM, mosta said...
On 11/10/2005 11:53 AM, Melissa said...
On 11/10/2005 10:55 PM, Michelle said...
On 11/11/2005 7:47 AM, gemmak said...
On 11/12/2005 2:46 PM, dkgoodman said...
On 11/14/2005 3:26 AM, gemmak said...
9 Comments:
It's been nearly a week! I was going to send a search party after you :)
I agree. I also think GP's and the FDA should wise up to what their prescribing and relate their concerns to those who need the medication. Patients are near their weakest and vulnerable when turning to these types of drugs, it's a crime not to inform them. The FDA shouldn't even allow meds on to the market if the testing is weak or absent.
This post really hits home for me.
As someone who can recite the alphabet backwards and forwards using both the brand and generic names of anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, psychotropic medication and the like, I know exactly how inexact medical science is, especially as it relates to mental health and the medications used to help treat it.
A perfect example is a medication by the name of Neurontin. Warner-Lambert, a child company of Pfizer Inc., aggressively and fraudulently marketed the medication directly to doctors for off-label uses, which were never approved by the FDA. Warner-Lambert, however, was marketing the medications as if these off-label uses were not only approved, but had proven results as well. One of its supposed uses was for the effective treatment of bipolar disorder, which is where yours truly enters the picture.
Neurontin was an excruciatingly expensive medication. When a new medication comes out, there is no generic substitution available. Thankfully, I was lucky to have had a very low co-payment for brand name medications at the time. Consequently, I didn't get involved in the class action lawsuit that followed, although I was interviewed over the phone by one of the lawyers.
The sad reality is that not only is there a financial loss for those who were duped into using Neurontin in the first place, but there is also a much more significant loss: Time.
Time to get up to a therapeutic dosage with the medication, which depending on how it’s done can take two months or more. Time to stay on that particular therapeutic dosage to determine if it is effective, which can be another two months. Upping the therapeutic dosage again if the lower dose was ineffective. Another two months.
And then, when it becomes obvious that "it just ain't workin' for ya," there's the additional time needed to wean yourself off of the medication, which sometimes equates into another two months.
I don't remember how long my psychopharmacologist and I struggled with that medication, thinking that Neurontin was as effective as Warner-Lambert claimed, before we caved in to the obvious.
Ironically, it wasn't long after we had agreed to discontinue that medication that we found out about the fraudulent claims made by Warner-Lambert.
This shows that it's not only the consumers who are vulnerable to the claims made my drug manufacturers. Even psycho-pharmacologists, psychiatrists and other doctors can be completely misled.
Patient beware.
Sorry, Michelle. (Or should I say, Jeannie?) I've been busy with many different things, and still feeling under the weather. I hope to be posting more soon.
Thanks for sharing, Candace. I know it's a sore subject.
There's a related issue that I consider to be even worse. The pharmaceutical industry is regulated, albeit poorly, by the FDA. There's at least a modicum of testing and enforcement. The dietary supplement industry is not regulated, and can market products without FDA approval, and without scientific testing or proof of efficacy, or even assurances that a product is safe.
In the 80's there was a fiasco involving L-Tryptophan, a dietary supplement, sold in health food stores and drug stores and the like, which was manufactured by Showa Denko, a Japanese petrochemical company. They had a bad batch, and among the many Americans seriously disabled as a result were two of my family members. Showa Denko did its best to evade responsibility for its malfeasance, and it took congressional action to get any help at all for the victims.
The American public is being left to fend for itself against the predations of corporate greed, and I hope something happens soon to correct that.
I don't like much using pharmaceuticals but I think I'm too spoiled to realize the possible value of man made food substitutes which I will call phood...perhaps it may be the hubris of humankind to think it can recreate nature's abundant bounty...hope you feel better...have some phood (err food)
Sorry that you're still not feeling well. Did your family members ever recover from the L-tryptophan disaster?
Your poor pumpkin, sorry to hear your still suffering :(
Lokk forward to having you back in one piece :)
I can't comment on the US but here in the UK SSRI's are not directly 'hawked' to the consumer but to the medical and pharmecitical professions. This subject hits a nerve with me, I am aggravated by hearing lay people expound on what we should and should not do with regard to these drugs, most of whom have only half knowledge. No drug is good for all, nothing in life comes without a compromise and by the very nature of the human physiology suitable treatments will be a case of trial and error. One thing is for sure, we have a choice, if as an individual one isn't happy about a particular drug then don't take it. Yes, when prescribed these drugs we are often vulnerable but not stupid, we can still rationalise and make decisions for the most part. I for one will admit to being a long term SSRI user, I am not 'doped' up', I am not incapable and I am not in merely a suppressed state of depression....these drugs make a real difference to my life and one that I am prepared to take the long term usage risks for to achieve the benefit. 30 good years or 40 bad ones?.....there's not a contest!
I have nothing against people using whatever they need to use. I just believe that companies should be honest about what they're peddling and be ethical in the business practices (unlike the movie and record industry, for example).
Point accepted, in retrospect my comment sounded a bit 'sharp', in fact it wasn't aimed at you it was aimed, in the main elsewhere and like I said it hit a nerve :o) I agree, pharm companies should be ethical and honest, I think maybe they are a little more so in the UK but they do still leave alot be desired.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home