Threads identical to this one have been twice removed from the board in the past. If the moderators do not think the subject of fraudulent drug companies taking advantage of children and parents is relevant to this board, please so state and I will refrain from reposting this upon its expected third removal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1137542,00.html
The British manufacturers of an antidepressant drug that was
last year banned from use in children knew as long ago as 1998
that it did not work and deliberately avoided publishing the full
data because of the risk to their lucrative adult market,
according to a leaked internal document.
A position paper dated October 1998 shows that managers at
SmithKline Beecham - now GlaxoSmithKline - were concerned
at the commercial implications of two clinical trials in which their
drug Seroxat was given to children and adolescents with major
depression.
The results of both trials, known as protocols 329 and 377,
showed that the drug was no better than a placebo - an inert pill
- in alleviating the children’s depression. An internal unit at the
drug company called the Central Medical Affairs team prepared
a strategy.
The target, says the document - leaked to the BBC’s Panorama
team, which has made two programmes on Seroxat - was “to
effectively manage the dissemination of these data in order to
minimise any potential negative commercial impact”. About
500,000 adults were at the time taking the drug in the UK.
Seroxat was licensed for their use, but not for use in children.
Even so, some 8,000 to 10,000 children were also on it because
doctors can prescribe an unlicensed drug on their own
responsibility.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1137542,00.html
Re: Blind Faith?
This is a serious problem.
An article published last year by Canadian health authorities expressed extreme concern that Pharmas were permitted to withhold negative findings. The study they cited specifically involved clnical trials of Paxil in teens which found a very high risk of suicide while on or shortly after discontinuing the treatment. Althought the samples sizes were very small (less than 25 in each of two separate trials, there were two deaths and 3 or 4 attempts among the test participants. (Adults have also done this while being treated with SSRI’s but not at the incredible rate of more than 1:10).
The issue was not the suicides itself; it is impossible to determine from the data colected whether the children, who were at risk of suicide anyway did so because of an unexpected reaction to the medication or from their underlying depression. The issue is that the pharmas withheld the results of the trial entirely under proprietory information policies, and Canadian, US and other health authorities were not given this to consider so they could make recommendations to physicians about appropriatness of treatment.
If patients and especially the parents of patients are to make truly informed consent, the true risk/benefit ration has to be available for them. Period.
This is especially troubling as probably 90%, if not more of all medical testing is directly controlled by the pharmas, either inhouse or with generous funding and close oversight. There is also a tremendous amount of “inbreeding” between regulators in all Western countries and the industry they are to monitor, with highly compensated persons skipping back and forth over the lines between them. This does not equate to a global conspiracy, but it also does not give the reassurance that abuse does not take place, or that the problem is minor and irrelevant.
If I make offer an opinion, I do not believe it is the message posted that got the censor, but the manner in which it was. It is one thing to post a factual piece of unpleasant news, such as the initial post on this thread. I do not believe that your post is warranting removal Brian1 and I do not believe the moderators would either. However, when the thread degenerates into non-productive attacks, slander and irrelevant ranting, then it has to go. The third post on this thread is quickly headed in that direction. Perhaps if those who wish to expose the problems with the blind trust in pharmas would refrain from mudslinging and ranting, posts such as this one would remain in the archives.
Re: Blind Faith?
Case in point - your post Brian1 remains, as does “guest’s” bump and my reply. However “guest’s” second post (the third post I reference above) is now gone.
Moderator - could we have a sticky post from you which will clearly delineate the line that must be crossed to warrant removal? Perhaps some posters do not understand the difference between disagreement and personal attack (how’s that for giving the benefit of doubt?) I, for one, encourage healthy debate of difficult subjects, but understand that some degree of decorum must be maintained. Perhaps if this was spelled out more clearly we could encourage mature discussion without having needless degeneration.
Message from LD OnLine moderator
Hi Dad,
“If I make offer an opinion, I do not believe it is the message posted that got the censor, but the manner in which it was.”
You made a very good point. LD OnLine has been open to all points of view. Healthy discussions are welcome, only disruptive and offending activities are not accepted. These activities include:
-Repetitive quotings of the same statements or text to disrupt the normal flow of discussion.
-Personal attacks, name callings, insults.
-Foul language.
-General bashings of the whole population (teachers, doctors etc.)
-Unethical advices (call for suicide, killing etc.)
-Scams
FYI, every time a message is removed, the IP address of that message (and its range) will also be banned. Please understand the IP bannings won’t keep the violations from occuring again. Also, when removing bad postings, their replies may also be removed.
We might consider posting the rules as you suggested. However, the violations seem to have come from one person, or at least a group of people of the same behavior. They would do anything to disrupt the Forums regardless of what the rules are.
Thank you for your concern and support.
Enjoy posting.
LD OnLine
Re: Blind Faith?
Thank you ldonline for having a reasonable policy. I think you should post your policy in its own thread at the top so all can refer to it.
bump