![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 34 to 58 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by ivamcgoo on February 12, 2004, at 17:03:57
In reply to Re: effexor lawsuit - petition to sign first, posted by flyingdreams on February 12, 2004, at 11:54:38
THANK YOU for the petition and dateline's email address ...
Posted by noa on February 12, 2004, at 19:13:46
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by Angielala on January 15, 2004, at 14:54:07
>You are the first person I have heard anything good about this drug.
I know that there are a lot of problems with Effexor, BUT, perhaps the reason you hear more bad than good is that people posting here on this topic are frustrated and angry and more motivated to post about it.
I see effexor for what it is. On the one hand the medication that finally broke through my depressive symptoms after a long haul of searching. ON the other hand, it has its limitations--I don't tolerate the SEs at higher doses, so it is most effective for me in combination with other meds, and there are still some SEs I'd rather do without. And I know that there are withdrawal challenges should I decide to go off of it.
But it is a key component of a cocktail that is working for me, that has allowed me to be in remission from a very bad chronic depression. I consider this my "holding pattern" until something new and better comes along--until the science comes up with a new treatment with a new mechanism of action. It may be a while, and that's ok.
I agree that more truth about the realities of this medication are in order. And perhaps it should only be prescribed by doctors with special training in psychopharm, rather than by family doctors. I certainly wouldn't want it to be prescribed as a first line trial treatment because it is a powerful medication with "issues".
But there are people like me out there who have and continue to benefit from this medication. I myself don't have the energy to post frequently about its positives, and I suspecct this is true of others who feel the med has benefits, so you might get more of the negative slant on things here.
JMHO : )
Posted by cupcake on February 12, 2004, at 23:24:57
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by noa on February 12, 2004, at 19:13:46
behold the power of the blog!
i just wanted to add my two cents to the conversation. i'm currently embarking upon the lovely journey of Effexor withdrawal myself--veeeeery slowly. in my online searches for help and info on the withdrawal process, i've found many discussions and comments like the ones in this thread, but little in the way of resources and "sturdy" information. i saw the petition mentioned earlier, but i agree with some of the others that a lawsuit might not be the best way to go.
personally, i would love to just be able to find out more *good,* helpful information about how to get through the withdrawal process OK (w/o having to go on prozac--i'm on effexor in the first place b/c prozac and other ssri's made me very anxious among other things). and i want doctors, therapists, pdocs, and prospective takers of the drug to have a lot more knowledge and awareness of the side effects and withdrawal effects associated with it. i decided to put up a blog documenting my withdrawal process in the hopes that i could also encourage readers to comment on their own experiences (through the little comment function link at the end of each blog entry) and what helped them get through it.
also, by having one place to put links to helpful info, research, and generally all things effexor withdrawal-related (including people's anecdotes and stories, both horrific and not-so-horrific), my bigger goal is to amass a cohesive body of information and anecdotal evidence that somebody might one day be able to use as the basis forproposing/funding a really in-depth independent study of what exactly causes effexor withdrawal, traditional and alternative methods for lessening its effects, and maybe how to identify--through lab tests or medical history and/or some type of clinical assessment instrument or whatever--who would NOT be a good candidate for this type of drug.
from my own experiences (on prozac, paxil, serzone, wellbutrin, gabitril, and finally effexor), i know that prescribing AD's seems to be such an unexact hit or miss and there just HAS to be a way to get around all the pain and suffering (yeah, i know, the violins in the background) we've all experienced from just being on the wrong drug!
that said, like others have already mentioned, effexor has been truly helpful for some people. myself included, at the beginning.
for the record, i've been on effexor 1.5 years and was at 300 mg/day when i decided to try getting off (last week). i've been holding steady-ish at 150 mg/day for the past several days but feel like crap the closer i get to dose time every day. more info on the blog, of course, at:
http://brainzaps.tblog.com
Brainzaps: A Journal of Effexor Withdrawalplease feel free to post comments about your own experiences there if you feel so inclined.
Posted by noa on February 13, 2004, at 8:24:32
In reply to constructive action re: Effexor w/o lawyers!..., posted by cupcake on February 12, 2004, at 23:24:57
C-
I wish you luck. One thought, though. If you just started lowering the dose from 300 last week and are already at 150, to me that doesn't seem slow at all.
I think other people have had better luck going much slower than that and have been fine through much of the tapering, until, that is, they get to the final jump of going from 37.5 to nothing.
But if you've gone down 150 mg in just a week, thta seems rather fast to me and I am not surprised that you're having WD symptoms at this point.
Posted by sjb on February 13, 2004, at 9:51:32
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you » sjb, posted by Emme on February 12, 2004, at 8:42:01
I didn't word that right. Of course, if your BP goes up a lot due to Effexor, you should stop. I just think most folks go off due to other reasons.
Posted by leo33 on February 15, 2004, at 0:20:34
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by sjb on February 13, 2004, at 9:51:32
I think the drug companies should pay for the pain and suffering caused by their drugs, especially for lying and withholding information from the public about the drugs possible negative effects. I think law suits are in order and the solution for their unethical practices. They understand the language of money and nothing else.
Posted by BJlass on February 15, 2004, at 16:18:42
In reply to Re: effexor lawsuit, posted by gwen on February 8, 2001, at 19:57:43
The whole point is this: WE WERE NOT TOLD OF THE WITHDRAWAL EFFECTS OF EFFEXOR.
plain and simple.
Disclosure is legally required, I would think, in all drugs.
And for someone to say she'll testify against people who are hurting, what is wrong with a person like that?
Posted by BJlass on February 15, 2004, at 16:21:06
In reply to Re: effexor lawsuit, posted by Shell on February 8, 2001, at 23:20:54
I, for one, doesn't care about having "fans!" We care about our health and being fully INFORMED of the effects of drugs.
And WHAT is wrong with that?
Posted by BJlass on February 15, 2004, at 16:23:58
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by PoohBear on January 16, 2004, at 12:02:12
How would you know who is posting and who is not? Yea, I thought I was "being helped" by Effexor too!
Being put on something that is ADDICTIVE is not being "helped!"
Posted by BJlass on February 15, 2004, at 16:27:50
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by Angielala on January 15, 2004, at 14:54:07
Getting a drug off the market IF it is dangerous is certainly a good thing.
Also, forcing drug mfr's and doctors to give FULL disclosure is also a good thing if the drug were kept on the market.
Consumers have a right to know what they're doing to their brains. Hiding one's head in the sand is NOT the answer! I am so glad for this board and hearing from all these other people who also were hurt by Effexor. Thanks for your postings!
Posted by Althea8869 on February 15, 2004, at 17:23:13
In reply to I'll testify for you, posted by leo33 on February 15, 2004, at 0:20:34
leo33, couple things - i respect your opinion on these issues, and share some of them, but disagree on your post for the following reason(s):
Lets say you sued and won against wyeth, in that case, you would get a large payout(although it would be reduced on appeal-and wouldnt affect wyeth's cash flow anyway) and you still wouldnt feel any better. So you would begin the process of trying to find a new drug to help. But now theres a problem. Because of the lawsuit, all the major pharm's are increasing their insurance coverage which is going to cost them money, how do they cover that money? You guessed it drug prices go up. What else happens, your emplyers insurance plan will be charged more as well, so to retain their margins they will pass of the increased premiums to the workers in the form of higher deductions and probably fewer options for coverage. So you get doubly taxed. In the mean time, the pharm has still laid out $0.
Ok, so far so bad. But there's more: as a result of the lawsuit and the ones that follow, all prescription drugs prices will rise and your co-pay will rise too - everything from aspirin to cold syrup will all follow suit to reflect a higher pricing equilibrium on pharm products.
But none of this is the worst part. The worst part is the effect on the R&D pipeline. Drug development that might otherwise have continued will slow due to concerns over side effects that we are simply not at a stage that we can control them - certainly not on a person by person basis. At that point the board of directors of your pharm company has decided that due to the increasing liabilities involved, they will place far greater resrictions on which development projects to continue, in some cases companies will decide that it doesnt make sense to continue developing these medications - let the smaller labs do it. Only problem is the smaller labs dont have the $$ to afford the high tech equipment needed to due this development, so they borrow big from the bank and pass on the interest payments to you - the consumer - in the form of , you guessed it, higher drug costs on products developed in inferior labs.
So, you may ask, how does all this end....you go to your doc and ask him to prescribe something new to help you and he replies that, for insurance reasons, he cant prescribe 95% of the medications that are available to help you as a result of their possible side effects. He tells you to go to CVS and take some aspirin and cross your fingers. Thats the cycle that would take place more or less.THE SOLUTION is not going after the pharms, but to force a change in the clinical testing and reporting guidelines that the FDA uses, increase non-party oversight, and remove, almost completely, the developer from the trials process. They can conduct studies if they wish, but reports on efficacy and all other pertinent info will come entirely from state or private testing facilities, who will report only to the FDA.
Its either that or aspirin.
Posted by PixieEm on February 15, 2004, at 22:24:04
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by BJlass on February 15, 2004, at 16:27:50
Hey guys, I am having some serious problems right now. I could really use some help, if anyone can... I was originally put on A/D for a totally different reason... I have endometriosis and my OBGyn prescribed Lexapro for pain reduction. I later went to a GP and he told me that he thought Effexor XR would be a much better choice for me considering my history of sleep problems, migraines, drug sensitivity, and supposed fibromyalgia. WRONG!!! Yes, when I first started taking the Effexor it was not too bad as long as I took it everyday at the same time, but if I am a few hours late I started getting nausea, dizziness, sleeplessness, brain shivers, etc. I now know about the withdrawals, (through posts such as this), and I am scared to death to quit taking it. The 300mg effexor did nothing for the pain that it was prescribed for, and now I am just as tired when taking it as I was before I started. My relationship is really suffering from my lack of emotions and my nonexistant sex drive. I WANT TO GET OFF IT!!! What do I do? I have tried cold turkey and had such bad "brain shivers" that I could not leave my house. Driving was impossible. With much hardship I have managed to get down to 150 mg now, but that has taken 2 months. I am a student in my last semester of my senior year of college. I can't miss class. Funny enough, I am also a psychology major. Never heard anything about bad about effexor from my doctors. Wish I had known about this. I would have never taken it. I know it has helped some people, and I am happy for ya'll, but this is miserable for me. If anyone knows anything that will help relieve this pain, please let me know.
Last thing... I have thought about a malpractice lawsuit. I have no idea if I would even have a case. I just don't think that the doctor should have prescribed me a med without telling me about it. But at the same time, I don't know if it would be the doctor's fault, or the drug company's fault. All I know is that I feel like I have been wronged. I would like to be able to make informed decisions regarding any substance entering my body. Thanks!!!!~Emily
Posted by leo33 on February 15, 2004, at 22:57:06
In reply to Take two and call me in the morning..., posted by Althea8869 on February 15, 2004, at 17:23:13
Althea that is the exact crap about the system that I'm talking about. Your gonna get the screws put to ya either way. If thats the case, I would want the business accountable for the product they put out. As far as R&D is concerned, they put more money into marketing their drugs than R&D. If their main issue was pure in trying to just help people get well, then that would not be the case. As far as lawsuits are concerned, I've grown to learn that that is now a check and balance in the system. It allows the quote, unquote people a chance to have a voice. We all know the money would go to the lawyers anyway. But, I guess yours is a more perfect world than mine.
Posted by KimberlyDi on February 16, 2004, at 10:45:26
In reply to Take two and call me in the morning..., posted by Althea8869 on February 15, 2004, at 17:23:13
Excellent point.
And a different angle...
Chemo therapy to remove cancer. All those cancer patients who suffer terribly when they take it. And there's no 100% success rate. Are they up in arms over that? Or do they understand that it's sometimes the best choice of limited options?
There's no cure for depression. It's hit or miss. Effexor helped me for a few amazing months. Enough to help me climb out of some mentally-imposed pit that I had been trapped in for years. When I had to quit Effexor because of high blood pressure, I wasn't thrilled. I definately didn't like the withdrawal. I didn't like that my pdoc had no clue about the withdrawal effects and how to handle them. But I learned by myself. And I'm off of Effexor.
And yes, I had my first time real suicide attempt when I took my first inexperienced jump from 300mg to 150mg to 75mg in only a week. That's a major concern to me.
Yes, Wyeth should educate doctors about the dangers of withdrawaling too quickly. But should Effexor be taken off the market? H*LL NO. I'm still free from that mentally-imposed pit even now that I'm off Effexor. It jump-started my life. I still battle with depression, but I'm on a much more stable foundation now.
Do I want lawyers to get rich off the money I spent for Effexor? Nope. Do I want my insurance rates to go up because of rising medicine costs because of lawsuits? Nope. Do I want to be classified as the same as the Squeaky Wheel who gets the attention? Another H*LL NO, I'm worlds different from those whose response to everything is to sue.
KDi in TX
Posted by Althea8869 on February 16, 2004, at 11:22:45
In reply to Re: Take two and call me in the morning..., posted by leo33 on February 15, 2004, at 22:57:06
Leo33 - unfortunately your pretty much right on the money about getting the short end either way. But, and I believe this without question, maintaining the R&D pipeline and optimizing the time to market, while maintaining greater vigiliance in the trials process and further separation of the manufacturer from any of the product literature is what needs to happen. "Pure" biotech companies spend FAR more money on R&D than on S/M, this is not as true in commodotized pharmaceuticals - but you also have to adjust data for the fact that sales staff will usually draw a far higher salary than your scientists. As an analyst one of the first ratios you look at is R&D spending to net adjusted sales when analyzing 'specialty' firms. In some firms that can go up to 80% or more - because they live and die by the new product and because of the complexities of developing/manufacturing that product- commodity manufacturers are the polar opposite - they couldnt care less about the new product, they are only interested in finding better/cheaper ways to produce drugs that already exist. They piggy back, causing much lower product margins, but stable sales. I've worked as a polymer chemist and now, though out of work, as an analyst. The other thing that would be immensely helpful to our cause is to have the government better subsidize the smaller 'heavy' private r&d firms - their contributions can be immense, but all too often they fold because they cant pay the loan that they took to pay the loan(s) they took to finance their development.
Bottom line, its the research folk we should be finding some way to help - not the lawyers.
And no, my world is not a perfect one, in the last year I lost my job, my fiance ended our engagement and my brother died - and most days im living in a fog so dark that I cant see to the end of my nose.Our salvation lies in the labs and in the classrooms, not in a courtroom.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2004, at 17:48:15
In reply to Re: Take two and call me in the morning..., posted by Althea8869 on February 16, 2004, at 11:22:45
> maintaining the R&D pipeline and optimizing the time to market, while maintaining greater vigiliance in the trials process and further separation of the manufacturer from any of the product literature is what needs to happen...
I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding the economics of the pharmaceutical industry to Psycho-Social-Babble. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040209/msgs/314221.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 18:33:30
In reply to Re: I'll testify against you, posted by noa on February 12, 2004, at 19:13:46
You're missing the whole point of many of these postings.
It isn't really even a question whether or not the drug helped while they were on it, though that's great info to post here too. Obviously, many many people are very upset that their docs didn't tell them/warn them of the withdrawal effects.
Plus, if you knew a drug was causing long-term permanent brain damage, but made you feel great while you were taking it, would you continue to take it? And if so, don't you think you're entitled to know that up front before you swallow one pill?
Posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 18:38:04
In reply to constructive action re: Effexor w/o lawyers!..., posted by cupcake on February 12, 2004, at 23:24:57
I had been on 150 mg., tapered to 75 mg. (that took about 3-6 months), then tapered to 37.5. I think I took 37.5 for another 6 months or so. It took me about a year to really wean off Effexor. I even noticed a difficulty getting off the 37.5. I felt I needed to keep "chipping" from it--like a drug addict.
Posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 19:58:52
In reply to Re: Take two and call me in the morning..., posted by leo33 on February 15, 2004, at 22:57:06
I agree wholeheartedly Leo. Manufacturers need to be responsible. When a drug is on the market, it is heavily "marketed" as being safe. The doctor reassures you it's "safe," or "I wouldn't prescribe it if I didn't think it was 'safe.' Sound familiar?
Hey, I felt great (energetic, etc.) when I was on Effexor for a while. Then I started feeling like a zombie. And now I'm wondering if I've done permanent damage. And no one told me about the withdrawal effects.
When "patients" or "consumers" stop questioning, when they "just take their drugs like good little patients," that is when they have decided to act more like a helpless child unable to take care of oneself, and less like a fully informed (though depressed) client. Knowledge and questioning authority is empowerment. And even depressed people can act questions. Yes, and I know the desperation of wanting something badly (a quick fix) to fight off depression.
Posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 14:59:15
In reply to Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 19:58:52
Finally someone who understands! But I'm feeling guilty from picking on the poor defenseless drug companies. Althea is right, they should have no accountability and our right to sue should be taken away in efforts to protect the drug companies from us sue-happy clients. Of course the prices won't rise if we don't have the right to sue, yea right, they will keep rising trust me whether we have our right to sue or not. Who are you kidding execpt yourself.
Leo
Posted by Althea8869 on February 17, 2004, at 15:50:41
In reply to Re: Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 14:59:15
Leo - im going to try this again so im clear on my position.
1) I DONT think drug companies should be accountable for the medications they develop because they arent responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle.
2) I also do not blame my doctor for the withdrawl I suffered through. If I took the drug TODAY, and then went through the withdrawl and I hadnt been warned by him- then Id blame him for not warning me about it. When I took it, I honestly dont believe he had enough data in his possesion to make that warning. Need to remember that information sharing today has increased roughly a trillion-fold over what it was five years ago.
3)Who let the genie out of the bottle??? The FDA. If i want to market a cyanide capsule as a cure for depression, the only one in a position to let consumers know that the primary side effect of taking this medication is that you'll be dead, is the fda. If they approve this pill for treatment they shoulder the responsibility - without their 'signature' on the form it aint getting to the public. Bottom line: the FDA trials process was flawed when effexor was released and its still flawed today.If you want to sue the maker - I say go for it. But, you'll be in the same category, as far as Im concerned, as the guy that sued McDonalds becuase he got heart disease from eating too many big mac's and didnt realize that 5 big macs per day might have some side effects. Or the woman who got five million dollars because she didnt realize the cup of hot coffee she ordered was, in fact, hot.
Im fed up with the idea of 'sueing' to right a wrong. The only reason any of us had horrible withdrawl effects is becuase ONE organization said it was ok for us to take this drug. So were clear, that organization is the FDA. Their net wasnt cast wide enough then and it isnt now. Their reporting wasnt complete enough then and it isnt now.
Unfortunately your attention is, in my opinion, directed in the wrong direction. What we need is a congretional hearing on best practices and not a rash of lawsuits that cannot possibly stand to benefit anybody but the lawyers.
Sorry, but thats how I see it.
Posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 22:01:15
In reply to Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by BJlass on February 16, 2004, at 19:58:52
Oh dear Althea, Let me count the ways to try and explain this so you don't misunderstand me.
> Leo - im going to try this again so im clear >on my position.
> [ 1) I DONT think drug companies should be accountable for the medications they develop because they arent responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle.]1. But they are responsible, they often pay off the FDA and political connections to get some of these drugs out to market, and to keep some other good drugs from getting into the market from foreign competition.
> [ 2) I also do not blame my doctor for the withdrawl I suffered through. If I took the drug TODAY, and then went through the withdrawl and I hadnt been warned by him- then Id blame him for not warning me about it. When I took it, I honestly dont believe he had enough data in his possesion to make that warning. Need to remember that information sharing today has increased roughly a trillion-fold over what it was five years ago.]
2. I too would rather not blame my doctor but, then the doctor needs to have full disclosure about the drugs, which of course the pharmaceutical companies don't give them. And, I believe the doctor has to be responsible for the care they give their patients. This is what will protect us from the oh so many pdoc quacks out there.>[ 3)Who let the genie out of the bottle??? The FDA. If i want to market a cyanide capsule as a cure for depression, the only one in a position to let consumers know that the primary side effect of taking this medication is that you'll be dead, is the fda. If they approve this pill for treatment they shoulder the responsibility - without their 'signature' on the form it aint getting to the public. Bottom line: the FDA trials process was flawed when effexor was released and its still flawed today.]
3. They are both responsible in the above mentioned hypothetical situation. At least we have some sort of protection from the FDA as flawed as it is. And as far as the genie in the bottle, wasn't it Christina Aguilera that let her out?
> [ If you want to sue the maker - I say go for it. But, you'll be in the same category, as far as Im concerned, as the guy that sued McDonalds becuase he got heart disease from eating too many big mac's and didnt realize that 5 big macs per day might have some side effects. Or the woman who got five million dollars because she didnt realize the cup of hot coffee she ordered was, in fact, hot.]
I respectfully disagree, it would not be in the same category because the suit would actually be legitimate. The two you mentioned are frivilous and a matter of common sense. They too make me sick to my stomach.
> [ Im fed up with the idea of 'sueing' to right a wrong. The only reason any of us had horrible withdrawl effects is becuase ONE organization said it was ok for us to take this drug. So were clear, that organization is the FDA. Their net wasnt cast wide enough then and it isnt now. Their reporting wasnt complete enough then and it isnt now.]
Well, let me give you a couple of my own examples:
1. Lets say a company makes a car and sells 2 million of them but after a while there have been 20 incidents where the car would spontaneously blow up because of a faulty fuel system. Killing several people in the process. What do you think should be done about that? Most likely there would be lawsuits and the company would recall the car and fix the problem, as they should. I don't see either of these being done with these drugs. In your world there would be no responsibility taken at all.
2. Lets say a company makes a toy for children and markets and sells 30 million toys. Later its found that the toy is defective and kills 120 children, including one of your own, would an apology be accepted? I think not. What if they did not even recall the product or put warning labels on it after it happened. Would that be acceptable to you? I think not. And of course you would not want to sue for the damage done to you or your child would you. Its OK i'll just make another one. I would not want to hold anyone accountable for it. Yea right.
> [ Unfortunately your attention is, in my opinion, directed in the wrong direction. What we need is a congretional hearing on best practices and not a rash of lawsuits that cannot possibly stand to benefit anybody but the lawyers.]> Sorry, but thats how I see it.
And your opinion is strong and so is mine. Yes, in a perfect world a congressional hearing, debates, and actions correcting these situations would be great. But many of the congress are in the pockets of the large pharmaceutical companies, so I doubt a true solution would be found that way. Unfortunately, we live in a litigation society and many of our problems are solved in the courtroom, like it or not.
Sorry, but thats how I see it.
Leo
Posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 22:09:19
In reply to Re: Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 22:01:15
By the way, I have never sued anyone in my life but, I certainly would not want my right to do so taken away from me if I had a legitimate case.
Posted by Althea8869 on February 18, 2004, at 13:13:39
In reply to Re: Differences of opinion-Drug Disclosure, posted by leo33 on February 17, 2004, at 22:09:19
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Your points are reasonable leo. Does the FDA take bribes, yeah maybe they do - but then thats just another example of the flaws in the fda. In your two examples, I believe a lawsuit against the manufacturers is completely reasonable - the difference there is that there isnt a governing body testing these products extensively prior to their release - so the blame lies solely with the manufacturer. Not true of prescription drugs.
If I thought that a lawsuit promised any real value to those suffering from depression and the associated withdrawls then I would sign up. But it wont. In fact, if a lawsuit succeeded, and effexor were pulled off the shelves then I think we might see more people on the side of having it re-released than on the side of keeping it gone. Go through all the data on this med and one thing is clear above all else, it works - and it works better than most of the others time and time again .
I am a strong supporter of litigation of this kind when it truly is a means to solve a problem. I dont believe we have that situation here. You do. Thats the beauty of debate.I think that one way or the other, all this discussion is going to prompt one of these parties to do something. Too bad we'll probably never know about it.
Take care leo.
Posted by Jasper Ollins on March 11, 2004, at 14:27:34
In reply to Re: effexor lawsuit, posted by PoohBear on January 20, 2004, at 14:12:11
I really don't know if anyone is even reading this string anymore, but I have to get this out of my system.
The point has been danced around repeatedly but never truly addressed here. The issue is NOT to sue a big pharmacorp in order to pull a drug that is inconvenient for a few people to stop taking. The issue IS that Wyeth has been grossly negligent in their representation of this product and the risks associated with reduction of dose or complete cessation. And I do not exaggerate when I say it is a horrific and traumatic experience for MANY of us, enough so that some have taken their lives.
I would never suggest pulling this drug from the market - It obviously helps some and that's great - so does ECT, but come on! No one gets treated with ECT without knowing exactly what they are in for. Wyeth has acted in bad faith. They knew the severity of the side effects well before XR ever went to market and they did nothing about it except to put the same limp warnings on their label that accompanies every antidepressant.
Our civil laws in the United States are in place to protect individuals from just this type of abuse. Punitive lawsuits have proven highly affective against corporations who disregard the safety of the community in this way. And I really take exception to anyone criticizing the U.S. in this respect. If European and Canadian drug laws were more stringent we never would have seen the Thalidomide disaster come to pass...
Pull the drug? No way. Sue the rats? Absolutely. Maybe next time they won't play so loose with peoples lives. And if you think I am over reacting read some of the signatures on this petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/effexor/petition.html
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.