Buying drugs from Canada

[Trigg]

You're right.  I meant to say:

 

Not to worry...in five years, Bush will be gone and McCain will likely soften the stance.

Dave, if you quote me on this I'll lie m way out of it---But, I have said several times that bush is a known fool and Kerry is only a suspected fool so I would rather take a chance with Kerry than the known endity Bush. having said all that again, in 5 years if Kerry is half as bad of a president as Bush has been and if he gets the nomination again, I'll seriously consider voting for McCain.

 

There, I said it and I feel good now. WaaaaaaWaaaaaaa

[tonado]

Groups blast new cholesterol guidelines over conflict of interest

By Linda A. Johnson, Associated Press | July 16, 2004

 

TRENTON, N.J. -- Most of the heart disease experts who urged more people to take cholesterol-lowering drugs this week have made money from the companies selling those medicines.

 

Consumer groups on Friday blasted the new cholesterol guidelines as being tainted by the influence of major pharmaceuticals that make blockbusters such as Lipitor and Pravachol. Last year, drug makers earned $26 billion worldwide on cholesterol-lowering medicines, the top-selling class of drugs.

 

The new guidelines issued Monday by the American Heart Association and the federal government were aimed at preventing heart attacks. They were written by nine of the country's top cholesterol experts. At least six have received consulting or speaking fees, research money or other support from makers of the most widely used anti-cholesterol drugs.

 

The new guidelines would add about 7 million more Americans to the 36 million already encouraged to take the pills to lower their cholesterol, according to Dr. James Cleeman, coordinator of the National Cholesterol Education Program, which drew up the guidelines. NCEP is run by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

 

Cleeman said that regardless of connections to the drug industry, the advice to high-risk heart patients to lower their LDL, or "bad cholesterol," is sound science. The new guidelines were based on results of five drug studies since 2001, and about 80 experts besides the authors reviewed and endorsed them, Cleeman said.

 

But consumer advocates said the failure to make the conflicts of interest clear is inexcusable.

 

"It's outrageous they didn't provide disclosure of the conflicts of interest," said Merrill Goozner, with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

 

"It doesn't mean that their research is wrong," Goozner added, but doctors and the public need to know "that the people who are giving you this advice have their research funded by a party who has a self interest in the outcome of that research."

 

Coincidentally, Goozner's group on Monday released a study showing that at least 24 of 164 studies it reviewed in four medical journals did not disclose important conflicts of their authors.

 

Many studies of new and existing drugs are funded by their manufacturers, and Goozner and other experts say studies showing the drugs did poorly rarely are published. Last month, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline PLC, saying it committed fraud by withholding information about the dangers of its antidepressant Paxil to children.

 

The American Medical Association then urged creation of a comprehensive, government-run registry for all drug study results so unfavorable ones aren't buried. Meanwhile, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb are quietly seeking federal approval to sell low-dose, non-prescription versions of older cholesterol drugs that already have generic competition.

 

Cleeman said the heart institute would post information on industry ties of the new guidelines' authors on its Web site by Monday. Cleeman, one of the authors, said the information was still being compiled Friday but that all the authors except him "have some connection with industry."

 

Newsday first reported on the conflicts in Thursday's editions. They said six authors had earned money specifically from cholesterol drug makers, including Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co., Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca LP.

 

Cleeman and Dr. Rose Marie Robertson, chief science officer of the heart association, both said they felt financial disclosure was covered because most of the authors also worked on the last guideline update, in 2001, and made their connections known then. Cleeman said information on the two new authors is available from the organizations they represent, the heart association and the American College of Cardiology.

 

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, co-founder of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said disclosure, even in a publication, is not adequate.

 

"These people should be disqualified from being the principal authors of publications that have the imprimatur of the government on it," he said. He noted that side effects such as possible liver and muscle damage can make the drugs more dangerous than beneficial to people who have only a moderate risk of heart attack.

 

The updated guidelines say people with the greatest risk of heart attack, more than a 20 percent risk in the next decade, should try to get their level of LDL, or bad cholesterol, below 70, instead of the current recommendation of below 100. For people at high or moderately high risk of heart attack, the goal should be to get the level below 100, instead of the current goal of below 130.

 

The risk level is determined by a calculation of risk factors, such as prior heart attack or stroke, presence of heart disease or diabetes, family history, high blood pressure and smoking. The guidelines also urge people to adapt a healthier lifestyle, by getting more exercise, losing weight, quitting smoking and other steps.

[Dave G.]

Devil's advocate:  Why can't a drug company be profitable?

Darn...no one took the bait.

[Trigg]

Devil's advocate:  Why can't a drug company be profitable?

Darn...no one took the bait.

Dave dude, I already explained why a drug company SHOULD be profitable. Don't tell me you aren't reading my posts. Man that hurts.

[Dave G.]

Devil's advocate:  Why can't a drug company be profitable?

Darn...no one took the bait.

Dave dude, I already explained why a drug company SHOULD be profitable. Don't tell me you aren't reading my posts. Man that hurts.

The effects of my posts are rubbing off on you. Only three more months and you'll be voting for you know who.

[Trigg]

Devil's advocate:  Why can't a drug company be profitable?

Darn...no one took the bait.

Dave dude, I already explained why a drug company SHOULD be profitable. Don't tell me you aren't reading my posts. Man that hurts.

The effects of my posts are rubbing off on you. Only three more months and you'll be voting for you know who.

Nadar??

[tonado]

Great for the city

--------------------------------------------------

Boston announces deal to buy prescription drugs from Canada

By Associated Press | July 21, 2004

 

BOSTON -- The city on Wednesday joined a short list of Massachusetts cities that allow city employees and retirees to buy prescription drugs from Canada, a move officials predict will save about $1 million in its first year.

 

Mayor Thomas M. Menino went ahead with the plan despite a federal prohibition on the practice and despite a meeting late last year during which Food and Drug Administration officials urged him to drop the proposal.

 

"Drug prices have been rising too fast," Menino said. "We are pursuing importation as a way to help city of Boston workers and retirees access vital prescription drugs at affordable prices."

 

The FDA has argued that buying drugs from Canada is risky because their safety cannot be guaranteed. But Menino said the city's contract with Calgary-based Total Care Pharmacy Ltd. includes stringent quality standards and procedural safeguards.

 

About 14,000 city workers, retirees and dependents enrolled in the Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan are eligible for the voluntary Meds By Mail pilot program. The savings estimate is based on the $60 million the city expects to spend on prescription drugs in the next fiscal year.

 

The program is offering about 50 drugs at first, from a list developed by a panel of doctors and pharmacists.

 

It only offers maintenance drugs for chronic conditions and only medications a consumer has been taking for at least 90 days. In addition, only brand-name medicines and only medications approved by the Canadian government will be available.

 

Medicines with severe drug interactions, which require significant medical management and controlled medications are excluded from the plan.

 

The program will be evaluated after a year, at which time it may be expanded to include more medications, or to allow more city employees to participate, said Menino spokesman Mark Reynolds.

 

Springfield last year became the first city in the state, and one of the first in the nation, to buy its prescription drugs from Canada. The city saved about $3 million in its first year. Springfield officials expect to double savings in its second year.

 

Pittsfield and Somerville are also buying prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies, while Brockton and Haverhill are among communities considering similar plans.

[LiuXia's Husband]

Great for the city

--------------------------------------------------

Boston announces deal to buy prescription drugs from Canada

By Associated Press  |  July 21, 2004

 

BOSTON -- The city on Wednesday joined a short list of Massachusetts cities that allow city employees and retirees to buy prescription drugs from Canada, a move officials predict will save about $1 million in its first year.

 

Mayor Thomas M. Menino went ahead with the plan despite a federal prohibition on the practice and despite a meeting late last year during which Food and Drug Administration officials urged him to drop the proposal.

 

 

The FDA has argued that buying drugs from Canada is risky because their safety cannot be guaranteed. But Menino said the city's contract with Calgary-based Total Care Pharmacy Ltd. includes stringent quality standards and procedural safeguards.

 

I wonder what will happen when somebody gets a bad batch of meds that was really made in Africa , East Europe, or Asia and relabeled in Canada. The $1MM savings will turn into a big loss for the city and a needless loss of life. The Columbian cartels also practice stringent quality standards and procedural safeguards. Any public official who violates federal policy should be held personally responsible for his/her negligence. What if Medicare decides that anybody who receives non-US made meds is ineligible for benefits? Anybody remember the Tylenol scare? I personally am willing to pay more for USFDA approved meds. Is your life worth so little that saving $20 is important?