</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I just thought it would be nice to point out that while the med is being touted as the drug from hell, for some of us it literally has been a life-saver.
Thanks,
Greg
</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I have to agree with Greg. When my psych put me on Zyprexa, it was due to my first full-blown psychotic manic episode. I had blown $3K in the previous week and then attacked my ex. I didn't remember any of it. I do remember that I was scared, hearing things and felt like my brain was racing so hard that it was on fire. I didn't want to take it at first either, but within 2-4 days it felt like I had me back again and that someone put the fire out. Emphasizing nothing but the rare, seriously harmful side effects does a grave disservice to those of us who have had our minds saved by it and those who need it but are easily spooked by oversimplification of complex rare events.
I think that it is all too common these days for people that are well-meaning but unfamiliar with the years-long process of drug trials to assume that because the FDA approved it, it's been proven safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. All FDA approval means is that the drug in question ameliorates a condition previously untreatable, or ameliorates a condition as well as or more effectively than a current drug option - with a minimum amount of known risk. It says nothing regarding unknown risk, because no one can predict the future. For instance, the oldest AD we have is Prozac, approved in the mid-80's. That's the only one of its kind with 20 years of data on it. We have no idea what the newer SSRIs and novel-class ADs may or may not do to us in the long-term. However, I'd say it's more important to all of us that we live a good quality of life now, even if based on a limited amount of data, instead of waiting for the future as in many cases it would be literally suicidal.
When medical news comes out with the latest drug problem, as was the case with Phen-fen (we were unfamiliar with its long term effects), or Vioxx (which was often wrongly prescribed, as it was meant for people suffering from debilitating conditions like MS, not arthritis that was treatable with Advil. Most of the victims fell in the "shouldn't have been taking it" column)there tends to be mass accusation against the FDA as "lax" and to call drug companies "unethical money-grubbers".
I would like to say, as one who works intimately with the drug submittal process, that for the most part the image of pharmaceutical companies as sharks preying on hapless patients is entirely untrue. I work every day with people who are sincerely and deeply committed to doing the best they can to help others live a better quality life. Calling the FDA "lax" is laughable. Please see this link:
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm to review the many, many stringent actions against all sorts of companies, including at times your own doctor for failure to follow trial protocol perfectly - and I mean
perfectly- as well as your grocery store, meat provider, favorite restaurant, etc. FDA regulators have all the personality of a statistician crossed with an accountant. They are very, very, very rigorous, especially where drug submissions are concerned. Pharmaceutical companies, these days, are guilty before being proven innocent, and it's rarely possible to come back from the initial accusation. These companies are public corporations that first and foremost have a responsibility to their shareholders as well as to the patients. Altruism leads to a lot of angry shareholders, many of them healthcare consumers themselves. Drug companies charge what the consumer is willing to pay, and we've always paid it. Also, a lot of companies operating in the US aren't even ours, which pretty much negates the argument of "enlightened" overseas pharmaceuticals. Their drug development costs are just as high, if not higher, than U.S. company costs, but it's the entire healthcare system in places like the UK that makes it look cheap. It's patently not. Those "altruistic" companies merely charge us that much because we'll pay it.
Please keep in mind that I too am a longtime traveler through the US medical system. It's not that I don't believe there aren't any bad apples, or bad decisions or poor judgement from time to time. They exist in all walks of life, regardless of occupation. I'm just tired of hearing an entire industry get villified that spends a lot of time, effort and care and yes, money, to fulfill a social responsibility. They could not ever have provided us with the medication options available to us if they gave them all away.