PDA

View Full Version : Outsourcing our drug supply: disturbing article



Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 08:30 AM
As per Sunday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601295.html?sub=new), I learned the following:


Over the past seven years, amid explosive growth in imports from India and China, the FDA conducted only about 200 inspections of plants in those countries, and a few were the kind that U.S. firms face regularly to ensure that the drugs they make are of high quality.

Now, I don't know whether FDA is actually authorized under the Code to conduct mandatory BiMo audits, as this article implies. As these drugs would fall under the umbrella of 'interstate commerce', they WOULD fall under FDA's jurisdiction once the shipment of drugs or drug ingredients entered the country. Am unsure how much authority FDA has to conduct overseas inpections, however.

As an FYI, the inspection arm of the FDA is an independent dept from the arm that approves new drugs. I am unsure if that arm is funded under the 'user fee' provision of FDAMA or not. If not, that dept may have had its funding cut, resulting in man-power shortage (I know that this has happened in other parts of FDA). The Federal govt is also going through a huge amount of attrition right now, as all of the Boomers have reached retirement age and no new hiring is taking place in a lot of areas (not all).

Regardless, this article reveals a very disturbing hole in the safety net.

Nereid
2007-Jun-18, 11:56 AM
If you happen to live in any country other than the US, what relevance, importance, or interest do you think this article might have to you or any of your neighbours or co-workers?

Lianachan
2007-Jun-18, 12:35 PM
If you happen to live in any country other than the US, what relevance, importance, or interest do you think this article might have to you or any of your neighbours or co-workers?

To be fair, you could ask that of a great many things that are posted here.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 02:04 PM
If you happen to live in any country other than the US, what relevance, importance, or interest do you think this article might have to you or any of your neighbours or co-workers?


Um, I wasn't aware that a thread had to have relevance to people outside the US to be posted.

Are you saying I should NOT have posted this because the subject does not apply to someone living outside the US?:confused:

You are a moderator, Nereid, so I will abide by the rules you set. :)

Nereid
2007-Jun-18, 05:52 PM
Um, I wasn't aware that a thread had to have relevance to people outside the US to be posted.

Are you saying I should NOT have posted this because the subject does not apply to someone living outside the US?:confused:

You are a moderator, Nereid, so I will abide by the rules you set. :)My bad ... I should have said that I only speak as a moderator if I'm burnt red.

What I was, and still am, curious about is how folk who might actually live in China, or India, or Japan, or Germany, or Brazil, or ... feel about both the news article and what you wrote in your post.

I mean, might someone point out that some senior Chinese official (drug regulator?) was recently given a death sentence for his role in sub-standard drugs? Or that a Japanese (agriculture?) minister recently committed suicide over some dishonourable actions (to do with drugs?)?

Might someone ask how many US drugs companies have been found to have made, sold, distributed, ... sub-par drugs? Or how many FDA officials are paid to check the drugs that such companies do sell? Or how many US (FDA?) officials monitor the quality of drugs that are exported from the US? Or whether the US (FDA?) allows exports of drugs that are banned in the US?

Or maybe a boomer in Italy, or Canada, or New Zealand, or ... might have a perspective on their safety net? Or a 50s something resident of Wuhan or Bangaloroo - how do they feel about drug safety nets?

I'm curious, that's all.

publius
2007-Jun-18, 06:08 PM
Paracelcus,

Yes, that has an alarming tone, doesn't it? That's the purpose. It's to get you scared and support legislation that ensures we Americans continue to pay through the nose for drugs. :)

Washington has always been a hotbed of corruption to various degrees, but right now, the drug companies and their relationship with politicians is about the corruption there is, IMHO.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

That is article by Marcia Angell, a doctor and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who wrote a book, "The Truth about the Drug Companies". She pretty much tells it like it is.

And (Tricky, I like to call him) Dick Morris has written a book about the biggest cases of corruption in Washington/American politics today. Drug companies make his list of the top offenders. That's a good read as well.

Basically, when the drug companies want to do something, IMHO one should do just the opposite of what they want.

-Richard

Doodler
2007-Jun-18, 06:25 PM
If you happen to live in any country other than the US, what relevance, importance, or interest do you think this article might have to you or any of your neighbours or co-workers?

Americans survive the cricket, soccer and other associated threads from the rest of the world around here and somehow we manage to cope. ;)

As far as FDA inspections from overseas shipments, I'd be careful how far you read into that. Depending on the source of the drug shipments in question, the difference in quality is likely negligible. Personally, I'm half convinced the FDA doesn't nose itself into these situations over any real altruistic motivations. Most the interest in stemming the flow of foreign meds into the US has more to do with keeping us a captive market for pharmaceutical companies that get to charge us whatever they want in an unregulated market. The line they feed about meeting "US Standards" is a load of bovine waste, particularly when referring to meds from Canada or Europe.

China's feeling heat because of the recent melamine nonsense. Quite frankly, they deserve it. Thats something that feels like a page out of the old Soviet handbook about cutting corners to make state imposed quotas.

Then again, I'd seriously wonder about the sanity of anyone putting something in their body that originated in any destination where life has so little perceived value.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-18, 06:26 PM
I don't know; I think letting them develop new drugs is a pretty good idea. I think automatically approving or automatically rejecting anyone's statements is a pretty bad idea.

For what it's worth, a lot of drugs produced in this country are less-than-safe; they get by through the unregulated supplements industry.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 06:29 PM
For what it's worth, a lot of drugs produced in this country are less-than-safe; they get by through the unregulated supplements industry.


:clap::clap::clap:

Yup.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 06:37 PM
My bad ... I should have said that I only speak as a moderator if I'm burnt red.

What I was, and still am, curious about is how folk who might actually live in China, or India, or Japan, or Germany, or Brazil, or ... feel about both the news article and what you wrote in your post.

I mean, might someone point out that some senior Chinese official (drug regulator?) was recently given a death sentence for his role in sub-standard drugs? Or that a Japanese (agriculture?) minister recently committed suicide over some dishonourable actions (to do with drugs?)?

Might someone ask how many US drugs companies have been found to have made, sold, distributed, ... sub-par drugs? Or how many FDA officials are paid to check the drugs that such companies do sell? Or how many US (FDA?) officials monitor the quality of drugs that are exported from the US? Or whether the US (FDA?) allows exports of drugs that are banned in the US?

Or maybe a boomer in Italy, or Canada, or New Zealand, or ... might have a perspective on their safety net? Or a 50s something resident of Wuhan or Bangaloroo - how do they feel about drug safety nets?

I'm curious, that's all.

Understood. :)

Well, I believe the sale of banned drugs is not allowed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm.


SEC. 301. [ 21 U.S.C. 331] The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: (t) The importation of a drug in violation of section 801(d)(1), the sale, purchase, or trade of a drug or drug sample or the offer to sell, purchase, or trade a drug or drug sample in violation of section 503(c), the sale, purchase, or trade of a coupon, the offer to sell, purchase, or trade such a coupon, or the counterfeiting of such a coupon in violation of section 503(c)(2), the distribution of a drug sample in violation of section 503(d) or the failure to otherwise comply with the requirements of section 503(d), or the distribution of drugs in violation of section 503(e) or the failure to otherwise comply with the requirements of section 503(e).


I think that passage refers to the sale of banned drugs. Am not sure. I had to wade through ALOT of legalese to get that passage.

Dr Nigel
2007-Jun-18, 10:09 PM
If you happen to live in any country other than the US, what relevance, importance, or interest do you think this article might have to you or any of your neighbours or co-workers?

Well, I do live in a country other than the US, and I am very interested in such things. But then, I have a vested interest. I work for a CMO (a contract manufacturing organisation) that currently manufactures high-tech biopharmaceutical APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients) for clinical trials. Wiki has a slightly out-of-date entry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopharmaceutical) that gives you the basic idea of what I'm on about. In the near future, we are going to have an inspection from the FDA which will assess our competence for making launched API products. This inspection will be purely from a patient-safety point of view, and it is taken very seriously.

The FDA matters to us because (a) we have customers who wish to sell their products in the USA; and (b) there are patient groups* in the USA who wish to have access to some of what we are making.

In short, the FDA has the power to regulate any company that wishes to sell drugs in the USA.


* I mean groups of patients, not groups of people who happen to be patient.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-18, 10:21 PM
...For what it's worth, a lot of drugs produced in this country are less-than-safe; they get by through the unregulated supplements industry.You've found a drug masquerading as a supplement? Supplements come under the Food category of FDA; drugs are (obviously) in the Drug category. Among the 'less-than-safe' category:
...Five deadly drugs that were FDA approved:
Propulsid (302 deaths recorded between 1993-2000), Rezulin (391), Redux & Duract (191), Posicor (100)... Is That A Politician In Your Pocket?, John Wiley & Sons, 2004, p. 74

Frantic Freddie
2007-Jun-18, 10:34 PM
For what it's worth, a lot of drugs produced in this country are less-than-safe; they get by through the unregulated supplements industry.

They're not considered "drugs",they're "supplements".They don't have the rigorous testing that drugs go through,they just have to be deemed "safe for human consumption" by the FDA.They have nothing to do with the drug industry.


For disclosure's sake,my wife is an RPh & knows quite a bit about the supplement industry & while there's a good number of things that are useful (e.g. vitamins),there's a whole lotta crap out there.Some of it is harmless/useless,but some can cause harm to people that are allergic or are taking real medications that a supplement could interact badly with.That's why the FDA requires the "Consult your physician..." label on all supplements.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 10:37 PM
True enough, but it all depends on whether the supplements in question make a health claim as defined under the act. If they define themselves as drugs by the claims they make, then they are regulated as such.


The FDA matters to us because (a) we have customers who wish to sell their products in the USA; and (b) there are patient groups* in the USA who wish to have access to some of what we are making.

In short, the FDA has the power to regulate any company that wishes to sell drugs in the USA.

Then this would include the authority to do BiMo inspections for the primary facility manufacturing the drug. I'm unsure if it extends to facilities manufacturing drug ingredients, however.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-18, 10:37 PM
They're not considered "drugs",they're "supplements".They don't have the rigorous testing that drugs go through,they just have to be deemed "safe for human consumption" by the FDA.They have nothing to do with the drug industry.


For disclosure's sake,my wife is an RPh & knows quite a bit about the supplement industry & while there's a good number of things that are useful (e.g. vitamins),there's a whole lotta crap out there.Some of it is harmless/useless,but some can cause harm to people that are allergic or are taking real medications that a supplement could interact badly with.That's why the FDA requires the "Consult your physician..." label on all supplements.

YES.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-18, 11:54 PM
...If they define themselves as drugs by the claims they make, then they are regulated as such...The Federal Trade Commission gets involved:
June 19, 2003
...The FTC has charged the two companies, their owners, the principal distributor, and a purported "expert" with making false and unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits and safety of a product [supplement] they market...
FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/seasilver.shtm)

publius
2007-Jun-19, 01:37 AM
If anyone is interested, Dick Morris' book is called "Outrage". It's currently #6 on the Amazon list. Drug company shenanigans are one, and another one that is just precious is politicians putting their wives and spouses and other family members on the campaign payroll, and paying them ridiculous $100,000+/year salaries. That is just a back door to let enormous corporate contributions go directly to their own pockets.

Outrage, indeed, and completely legal, since they write the laws. Remember how they were going to do campaign reform and get all the dirty money out? :lol: I'm hoping all this will soon (in historical terms) reach a boiling point, and we have a big throw-out-the-bums party again. I guess it's about time in historical terms. Little Tommy Jefferson said we need a little rebellion every so often. It's high time.

Give "Outrage" a read, and you'll be in the mood for a good old fashioned tarring and feathering and running out of town on a rail mood. And just remember, when it comes to sodomizing the taxpayers, they're all a member of the same party on that score. :)

-Richard

Gillianren
2007-Jun-19, 03:43 AM
They're not considered "drugs",they're "supplements".They don't have the rigorous testing that drugs go through,they just have to be deemed "safe for human consumption" by the FDA.They have nothing to do with the drug industry.

Except inasmuch as a lot of them are made by the same companies.

In all honesty, it depends on your definition of "drug," I suppose. Definition 1c from Merriam-Webster online is as follows.


c according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device

This, to me, very clearly includes--among other things--Sarongsong's beloved colloidal silver, intended to prevent disease. It includes glucosamine and related products. Heck, it even includes my vitamins, which are intended to affect the structure or function of my body--I intend to avoid vitamin deficiencies. And, of course, weight gain and weight loss products.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-19, 04:48 AM
...This, to me, very clearly includes--among other things--sarongsong's beloved colloidal silver, intended to prevent disease...Oh goody! [soapbox time]; what is generally called colloidal silver in supplement circles (and slightly beyond), we (http://www.silverlist.org/) now refer to as EIS (electrically isolated silver), for analyses have shown home-made 'CS' is actually 80-90% ionic and only 10-20% colloidal. While many do use it as a preventative, most use it to address a specific insult/injury. [end soapbox]

Jens
2007-Jun-19, 05:28 AM
What I was, and still am, curious about is how folk who might actually live in China, or India, or Japan, or Germany, or Brazil, or ... feel about both the news article and what you wrote in your post.


Actually, there is a lot of babbling here that is pretty uninteresting to those of us not in the US. Things about TV programs and the NFL season come to mind. But it's just babbling, so I wouldn't complain.

About the drugs thing, I am interested, but more because it is a more general issue. It's a more general issue of globalization and food/drug safety, etc., as well as corruption and trying to scare people into accepting higher prices. This kind of thing happens pretty much everywhere in the world. In Japan, people often say that we should only eat Japanese grown food because the food imported from the US contains dangerous pesticides, etc. On one hand it's a valid concern and on the other it's an attempt to protect local interests. So I can't say that I am strongly on one side or the other, but it is an issue of fairly global interest.

Now, the thread about a certain princess or something who was sent to prison. That I could do without. :) But I think most Americans living in the US could have done without that one.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-19, 06:50 AM
Ugh, here comes the legalese. A dietary supplement is defined as follows:

(ff) The term "dietary supplement"—
(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
(A) a vitamin;
(B) a mineral;
(C) an herb or other botanical;
(D) an amino acid;
(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or
(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
(2) means a product that—
(A)(i) is intended for ingestion in a form described in section 411(c)(1)(B)(i); or
(ii) complies with section 411(c)(1)(B)(ii);
(B) is not represented for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet; and
(C) is labeled as a dietary supplement; and 3) does—
(A) include an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505 or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and was, prior to such approval, certification, or license, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food and
(B) not include—
(i) an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507 7, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262)

Thus, according to the Act, vitamins would be considered as dietary supplements. There was more verbiage in the Act addressing the issue of when a supplement crosses the line and becomes a drug, but I don't have time to post that info this morning. More information is also available in the Dietary Supplements Health Education Act (DSHEA) at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-19, 07:03 AM
Oh goody! [soapbox time]; what is generally called colloidal silver in supplement circles (and slightly beyond), we (http://www.silverlist.org/) now refer to as EIS (electrically isolated silver), for analyses have shown home-made 'CS' is actually 80-90% ionic and only 10-20% colloidal. While many do use it as a preventative, most use it to address a specific insult/injury. [end soapbox]

I seem to remember you being confronted about that little fact of chemistry; I seem to remember you arguing the point.

If you're using it to care for a specific insult/injury, it's a drug.

cbacba
2007-Jun-19, 07:13 AM
I don't know; I think letting them develop new drugs is a pretty good idea. I think automatically approving or automatically rejecting anyone's statements is a pretty bad idea.

For what it's worth, a lot of drugs produced in this country are less-than-safe; they get by through the unregulated supplements industry.

The whole approval process seems to be a scam. It appears that by creating a gov. hurdle that is almost impossible to overcome - years of delay and hundreds of millions of dollars of testing to bring about a new drug - is intended on keeping down the upstarts and protect the companies from new lean and agressive competitors.

There's nothing wrong with making legitimate profit and with investing in R&D. However, getting gov. protection to keep out the competition (beyond that of the classical patent) by inspiring massive costs is beyond the pale. Essentially all medicines have negative side effects and have somewhat different effects on some people and when not strictly used are dangerous and/or ineffective. Just because a medicine works for most doesn't meant it works for you or that it won't kill you or your liver in short order. Besides, you might die waiting for the new one that fails approval or can't get approved for years because they want to determine if it has side effects or if it works in 2/3 of the cases or something like that.

As for the foreign drugs, the pet food melamine should be indicative of getting much of anything from some places in the world. Since china seems to have a growing new market for organ transplants (good use for worthless terrorists, counterrevolutionaries and antigovernment trouble makers in general), increasing the demand for such transplants from rich countries who can pay more for the organs makes good 'business' sense. It makes me wonder if memaline contamination has similar effects on people as on pets and if it was hoped for that the tainted foodstuff might have gone into our food supply - in this case - possibly as a test.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-19, 07:34 AM
I seem to remember you being confronted about that little fact of chemistry; I seem to remember you arguing the point...Yes; there is still some doubt about whether it's the colloidal or ionic content responsible for its 'efficacy'.
A couple $M for research might determine whether it's either, or both working together. http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Jens
2007-Jun-19, 09:11 AM
Heck, it even includes my vitamins, which are intended to affect the structure or function of my body--I intend to avoid vitamin deficiencies. And, of course, weight gain and weight loss products.

I'm not an expert in drug definitions, but what would seem to pose some problems for me is the thing about drugs "not being food." The thing about the vitamins is that they are all found in food. And this is also true for popular supplements like DHA and EPA, which are basically one type of fish oil. When my mother used to say, "eat your liver, it's got lots of iron," she was in a way giving me a primitive form of supplement. The point being that there's a somewhat thin line between what is food and what becomes a supplement and what becomes a drug.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-19, 10:15 AM
...there's a somewhat thin line between what is food and what becomes a supplement and what becomes a drug.Welcome to America! http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nereid
2007-Jun-29, 02:10 PM
I'm wondering if anyone has some views, or, better, data, on the incidence, in the US and elsewhere, of harm caused by things such as mis-reading prescriptions (wrong drug, wrong dosage, wrong regime/regimen, etc)?

You know, doc scrawls something illegible, but intended to be 'take 2 20mg tablets of Zenxoq* twice a day after meal' and the chemist (pharmacist, I guess, in the US), or nurse, reads 'take 2 200mg tablets of Xenzop* twice a day on an empty stomach'. Boomer with borderline Alzheimers' takes the drug as given (more or less, sometimes taking twice and twice, because he wasn't sure he'd missed or not), and dies, within two weeks.

My guess is that this is pretty common (well, OK, death may not be, but harm, or delayed recovery maybe). It's also, at one level, almost entirely preventable, without the need to hire thousands of extra FDA inspectors; but it also removes some high-profile, more distant targets from being bludgeoned.

If you like, an analogy with fear of flying: any even half-way rational assessment of risk tells you it's far safer to fly than ride a bicycle, or even cross a busy mid-city intersection. Why scare oneself silly over some miniscule risk due to unsafe drug components when the next prescription you fill may well kill you?

*Made-up names.

Paracelsus
2007-Jun-29, 03:00 PM
I have had personal experience in that area, actually. My former primary care doctor once wrote me a prescription for an antibiotic (I had a very bad case of gastroenteritis). I went to the CVS, filled it, and was walking out of the store when I noticed on the drug information sheet that this particular drug was contraindicated for patients with peanut allergies.

I am extremely allergic to peanuts; I go into anaphylactic shock. My primary-care physician knew this, as I had given him my medical history, and also had to have seen the contraindication for peanut-allergic patients, as that information would have been in the PDR entry for that drug.

Had I not read the drug info sheet, I might have died. It always pays to be an informed consumer!

Doodler
2007-Jun-29, 05:44 PM
I'm wondering if anyone has some views, or, better, data, on the incidence, in the US and elsewhere, of harm caused by things such as mis-reading prescriptions (wrong drug, wrong dosage, wrong regime/regimen, etc)?

You know, doc scrawls something illegible, but intended to be 'take 2 20mg tablets of Zenxoq* twice a day after meal' and the chemist (pharmacist, I guess, in the US), or nurse, reads 'take 2 200mg tablets of Xenzop* twice a day on an empty stomach'. Boomer with borderline Alzheimers' takes the drug as given (more or less, sometimes taking twice and twice, because he wasn't sure he'd missed or not), and dies, within two weeks.

My guess is that this is pretty common (well, OK, death may not be, but harm, or delayed recovery maybe). It's also, at one level, almost entirely preventable, without the need to hire thousands of extra FDA inspectors; but it also removes some high-profile, more distant targets from being bludgeoned.

If you like, an analogy with fear of flying: any even half-way rational assessment of risk tells you it's far safer to fly than ride a bicycle, or even cross a busy mid-city intersection. Why scare oneself silly over some miniscule risk due to unsafe drug components when the next prescription you fill may well kill you?

*Made-up names.


Most of the problems my mother recalls from her days running a cardiologist's office as his admin person, most prescription problems were elderly people deliberately violating the program and lying about it.

More than a few cases of internal hemmoraging were the result of ridiculous overdoses of blood thinners resulting from patients taking only half doses to stretch their medicare benefits, then telling their doctors its not working, and having them up the dose as a result.

The few pharmacists I know will research the prescriptions they get VERY thoroughly before issuing them if its not something they see commonly. The grocery store pharmacist that worked on my mother's meds has flagged several of them until she can verify exactly what the doctors are prescribing and in what doses. Very sharp lady.

publius
2007-Jun-29, 06:03 PM
There was a study done somewhere, around Washington DC I think, where they sent test patients to local pharmacies with prescriptions for two drugs that taken together were deadly, and would drop you dead rather quickly. Close to 30% of the pharmacies filled them without blinking an eye, the rest catching it.

That was part of a wake-up call kind of thing to stress that pharmacists need to check and double check (computer systems to do this are becomming common), and the patient himself needs to check and double check.

Another problem is drugs with similiar names. Doc writes an illegible script for Crapitor, and the pharmacist thinks it's Crapola.

-Richard

Noclevername
2007-Jun-29, 06:04 PM
Another problem is drugs with similiar names. Doc writes an illegible script for Crapitor, and the pharmacist thinks it's Crapola.


"Crap-On! Apply directly to the intestine!"

Gillianren
2007-Jun-29, 06:19 PM
I know my doctor told me to slowly drop the dosage of my old meds until I'm not on 'em anymore and to start new meds, but he didn't tell me in what order to do it or to do it at the same time.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-29, 10:59 PM
I'm wondering if anyone has some views, or, better, data, on the incidence, in the US and elsewhere, of harm caused by things such as mis-reading prescriptions (wrong drug, wrong dosage, wrong regime/regimen, etc)?...Lots:
February 9, 2007
...Nearly all poisoning deaths in the United States are attributed to drugs, and most drug poisonings result from the abuse of prescription and illegal drugs...
CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5605a1.htm)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-30, 05:19 AM
But "abuse" and "misreading" aren't necessarily the same thing. (Nor, naturally, are "poisoning" and "misreading"; quite a lot of poisoning cases are people very intentionally ingesting--or causing someone else to ingest!--too much of a given drug on purpose.) Besides, drugs are easier to get one's hands on these days than, say, cyanide.

sarongsong
2007-Jun-30, 06:11 AM
Seems to be a sketchy subject:
...what really got my attention was an article written in The Journal of American Medical Association back in 1998, in which they showed that properly prescribed medication, prescribed and taken properly, is the fourth-leading cause of death in the country. Then, when you add the improperly prescribed medications to this that are not taken properly, that is another 80,000 deaths, making it the third-leading cause of death...it is a voluntary reporting system. Less than one percent of these adverse drug reactions are really reported back to the FDA, because doctors and hospitals are not required to report them...
---Dr. Ray Strand, author of Death By Prescription
News Target (http://www.newstarget.com/009758.html)

Maksutov
2007-Jun-30, 06:17 AM
Seems to be a sketchy subject:I'm sure there's a silver lining in there somewhere...

sarongsong
2007-Jun-30, 07:14 PM
Yes; not one death attributed to it, because if there were, rest assured we'd know about it! :)