Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Organicconsumers.org does not appear to be an unbiased source. And the FDA's procedures for food vs. drugs are different. Drugs will always have negative side effects. It's what they do. Food should not.
Basically every painkiller increases the chance of death in people with heart problems. High doses even more so. I don't have the newspaper article I was reading about how the official dosages did not have as significant side effects as the increased dosages doctors prescribed. They fell into the trap of thinking it was "safe" It's never safe. PR killed Vioxx more than anything else.
/Yeah I said "safe" earlier, but it's a relative scale thing.
If studies show no difference in cloned vs. non-cloned meat than the only thing different is your perception of it.
|
Yes, the site is a biased site.. but the page sums up my feelings on the matter and does provide legitimate sources for its position. Further, Dr. David Graham, the associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA's Office of Drug Safety has lambasted his own agency for the Vioxx mess and other drug-safety regulation failures. You might want to read this interiew in its entirety. Meantime.. here's one quote from that interview:
"On the safety side, I think that the American public can't be very confident. They can have some confidence because it turns out that most drugs are remarkably safe. But, when there are unsafe drugs, the FDA is very likely to err on the side of industry. Rarely will they keep a drug from being marketed or pull a drug off the market. A lot of this has to do with the standards that the FDA uses for safety. When they look at efficacy, they assume that the drug doesn't work and the company has to prove that the drug does work. When they look at safety it's entirely the opposite. The FDA assumes the drug is safe and now it's up to the company to prove that the drug isn't safe. Well, that's a no-brainer. What company on earth is going to try to prove that the drug isn't safe? There's no incentive for the companies to do things right. The clinical trials that are done are too small, and as a result it's very unusual to find a serious safety problem in these clinical trials. Safety flaws are discovered after the drug gets on the market."
http://www.newstarget.com/011401.html
I'm afraid you're mistaken regarding pain killers. Aspirin is a pain killer and actually is recommended for people as a PREVENTATIVE for heart problems.
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4456
You also are mistaken regarding the safety of normal doses of Vioxx. In fact, it has been found to cause heart attacks even in low doses:
and.. during Senate Testimony-- Dr. Graham said this:
"In March of 2004, another epidemiologic study reported that both high-dose and low-dose Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks compared to Vioxx's leading competitor, Celebrex. Our study, first reported in late August of this year found that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack and sudden death by 3.7 fold for high-dose and 1.5 fold for low-dose, compared to Celebrex."
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/c...iew/000160/61/
PR didn't kill Vioxx... Vioxx killed people... and studies have now proved it.
So.. my question is.. how can we believe an agency which as made such egregious mistakes regarding our safety?
Threaded Mode
