As anyone who has watched television in the past year or so has noticed, there are a lot of new drugs coming out for everything from obseity to heart disease, but in every commercial, there's a huge list of side effects that often strikes me as worse than the condition the drug is supposed to be treating.

"Warning, may cause dry mouth, shakes, hallucinations and possibly death."

Are the drug companies coming out with new 'wonder drugs' too fast and are they too unsafe to be on the market? Or are we just more aware of the side effects because drug companies are being allowed to advertise on television?

My feeling here is that when your doctor prescribes a certain medication, he often glosses over any possible side effects. Those warnings are provided by the pharmacist who fills the prescription.

Since this new fad of TV advertising of "wonder drugs" has begun, I bet there is some regulation insisting they put possible side effects in the ad. Side effects do tend to be rare or mild, in most cases. Just because "death" is listed as a possible side effect does not mean that any significant percentage of test subjects has experienced death.

Side effects ARE going to be present, in some percentage, for all drugs. It is inevitable. It is up to the individual (and his or her doctor) to decide whether the presence of side effects makes taking a medication worthwhile.

In 1997, when the FDA gave in to the pharmaceutical lobby and relaxed its criteria for direct-to-consumer marketing, part of the deal was that the label warnings needed to be audibly included in all ads. (I got some of this from Stephen Fried's Bitter Pills, but an article from one prominent lobbyist says about as much.)

The fact that most of these effects are read out at the end of the ad tends to make them seem more prominent, I expect, than if they appreared in fine print in a newspaper or magazine ad (or on the label of a bottle). Almost all presecription drugs have such associated effects - that's why they're by prescription rather than over-the-counter. I don't imagine they're much worse (or better) than they were ten, twenty, fifty years ago. Pharmaceutical companies are lobbying to get rid of this annoying details, though...

One side note on this thread (literally) - and one of my pet peeves. What's all this about "side effects"? Nothing a drug does to your body is a "side effect" - it is an effect. A direct, central, integral effect. It is every bit as valid to claim that aspirin is a drug which causes gastrointestinal bleeding - with "side effects" that include indigestion, nausea, vomiting, exacerbation of urticaria, the prevention of blood coagulation, the inducement of Reye's syndrome, and the alleviation of headache.

For medications which have multiple effects, there is one effect which is the reason you are taking the medication. The other effects are side effects as they are not your reason for taking the medication. People should be informed of these effects but there needs to be some sort of line in the sand to it. If less than 1% of people experience the effect is it worth mentioning? Corticosteroids is an excellent example of a medication having multiple effects. It is not unusual to prescribe it when some of the side effects are more pronounced than the desired effect.

It is important to know all effects of a particular medication. Not every individual responses the same. It is a good idea to learn of the possible benefits and risks of all treatments and medications. Ads are not a good means to acquire a good education on any subject.

If these ads are making people are better aware there are multiple outcomes from taking medications that is a good thing.

Medications are over used. People want a simple solution and this desire leads to taking medications when that may not be the best course.

Indeed, medications are overused. A friend of the family was
just diagnosed with Diabetes. She's 51 years old. She has been
abusing food for a long time and it's finally catching up with her.

She's now taking a bunch of pills a day, to help the "problem".
She could have prevented the onset of Diabetes by eating right
and getting excercise. But, her laziness wouldn't allow for that,
and now she's paying the price. The drug companies supplying
her with her pills couldn't be more pleased.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.........

Doomed_Planet
I was not aware that Diabetes is caused from laziness, eating wrong and no excercise.
Are you a Dr.?
I know several people who have had diabetes since an early age and they are not lazy or eat wrong.
I also know several people who were diagnosed with diabetes later in their lives. Who were not lazy and ate right.
I know this is off the original thread about prescription drugs, but I am interested in how you know this.

I'd imagine that most medicines have the label "can possibly cause death" so they can ultimately avoid being sued.

For instance, swallowing a whole bottle of Listerine won't kill you. You might be a little queazy, but you'll make it out okay in the long run. However, companies will put "In case of ingestion, contact local poison control center" so if some random person is somehow harmed, they can't be sued for not warning the consumer.

Mom of 3,

Nice to meet you. I'm a mom of 2.

Just for the record, I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to be.

The post that I wrote was about one individual that I know, who has Diabetes.
If you read it carefully you will see that I was referring only to her - I was not making a blanket statement.

However, someone else I know (who was very close to me) also suffered from Diabetes. My grandmother. She developed it relatively late in life, around age 55. She is another example of someone who was very overweight, ate a lot of refined, processed foods. She did not exercise at all. These were all factors, according to her doctor, and general information re: the disease, that led to her becoming a diabetic.

When she was first diagnosed they put her on pills, and strongly advised her to change her eating habits, and become physically active. She did not heed the warnings, and was subsequently put on insulin injections. Down the road she ended up doing kidney dialysis for 2 years before she died. It could have all been avoided if she would have had healthier eating habits, and kept her body in shape when she was younger.

There are 2 types of Diabetes: diabetes insipidus and diabetes mellitus.
The latter is what my grandma had (also what the previously mentioned person has).
And it is the type that is typically found in overweight individuals over the age of 40.

For complete and accurate info re: Diabetes go to the following website:

The American Diabetes Association :

[URL=http://www.diabetes.org/homepage.jsp]

Also, I have a wonderful book called Prescription for Nutritional healing , written by James F. Balch, M.D. It not only defines any disease, disorder, etc.
that a person might have, it also offers drug-free remedies (using vitamins, minerals, herbs and food supplements).
I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to take a natural approach when dealing with any sort of illness.

I do not know the specific circumstances of all of your friends with this disease,
but you can probably gain more insight by visiting the ADA website.

Alright, moms, back on topic:

I have worked as a pharmacist for about twenty years now, and I have seen a big increase in the rate at which new drugs are released to the market. I have very mixed feelings about this. Certainly, it's a good thing when new medications which are needed to treat serious conditions are released quickly. The best example might be the way in which agents designed to combat AIDS have been placed on a "fast track" to approval by the FDA. In such a situation, it makes sense to take the increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADR's; a more technical term for "side effects") when there is a strong possibility of extending the lives and reducing the suffering of patients.

On the other hand, I see a lot of new drugs released that seem to exist only to capture the lucrative market enjoyed by extremely similar drugs. There's even a term in the business for these drugs; they're called "me too" drugs. For example, there's a fairly new category of drugs used to treat ulcers. This group includes Prevacid, Protonix, Aciphex, Nexium, Prilosec, and so on. These drugs are all very similar. I wonder if it was really necessary to market all these medications so quickly, since there was little, if any, real benefit to the patient for one over the other. I would not prevent drug companies from putting out such drugs, but I might suggest putting them on a "slow track" to approval. (Although I am more-or-less a supporter of the "free market," it seems to me that the drug industry is one that requires some form of appropriate external regulation.)

I don't think these new drugs actually have more ADR's than other drugs. I have addressed the whole issue of direct advertising of prescription drugs to consumers on another thread.

Advertising Prescriptions Drugs To Consumers: Good Idea Or Bad Idea?

doomed_planet
Nice to meet you also. I hope I didn't offend you I was just curious.
Yes there are people who do not excericse eat wrong etc.
My mom was what they call a borderline diabetic. She was also 74 when she found this out.
My mom was overweight but not by much. She could only excercise what a woman can do at 74. Never had to take shots or pills. Very lucky I say. Follow the DR's diet.
But your right. People who have diabetes will have this for the rest of their lives and yes pills or insulin shots can only do so much.
Diabetes medications will work if you follow your Dr's advice and take the meds.
Are their too many drugs out there to easily gotten Hell yes.
It is very scary on one side but on the other hand some what cheaper for someone with no health care.
They don't have to pay for an office visit to see a Dr. Like Claratin for alleriges. Now sold over the counter.
The thing I find scary is now people are going to diagnos themselves and that can put a lot of people at risks or maybe unfortunately death.

Momof3, Hi again,

Thanks for your response. One of the hardest
things in life is to watch a loved one suffer from
health problems. It's not an easy situation....

Yes, self-diagnosis is another potential hazard too.
As if we need more to worry about....

Mom & doomed planet - this is your FINAL warning - debate the question posed here:

On your point, Victoria, in regards multiple products doing the same thing you also mentioned the free market. If a company comes out with a drug which has a good market it is natural for competition develope to compete for that market. From other drugs, I am aware chemists are experimenting with similar atomic structure but different side chains in order to get a patent so they may compete. If these drugs are similar, having one on the market would lead me to think other similar drugs have a better than average chance of also being safe.

A example I can think of would be phenobarbital. It came on the market and had financial success controlling seizures. Another company came out with Primidone. Primidone has a side chain which is removed via metabolism resulting in phenobarbital. That is how that patent on phenobarbital was beaten.

The other factor for a rapid development of drugs is lawsuits. If you have a product involved in a successful lawsuit against it, it is good business to develope a similar product to avoid the legal precedent against the original drug. Again, these products are similar so would be likely to also be as safe as the original.

I wonder if more obvious proclamations of adverse drug reactions also driven by lawsuits. Maybe the the ADRs are not more common but warning of them decreases liability?

You know much more of the current market particulars than I do, Victoria. I am just guessing at some of the possible market forces.

Having competition between similar products is a good thing. This helps to lower prices. I do not think there is a big risk when similar chemical structure drugs of previously approved drugs enter the market.