Two Die After Taking the Drug Rituxan (by Genentech) to Treat "Off-Label" Condition

Read all about it here:

http://watersidesyndication.com/healthnews/?p=84

PeterB wrote:
> Read all about it here:
>
> http://watersidesyndication.com/healthnews/?p=84

This has got to make you think about the world the FDA lives in:

****

Consumer health advocate Mike Adams said the patients' deaths
highlight the consequences of the FDA's allowance of rampant
off-label prescribing.

"The fact that any FDA-approved drug can be legally prescribed for
literally any health condition whatsoever - including those for which
it has never been tested - makes a mockery of the so-called
scientific medicine systems operating today," Adams said.

"It is beyond explanation that a perfectly safe herb cannot be
legally prescribed for any condition, yet a dangerous drug can be
legally prescribed for every condition. This is not a system of
medicine; it is a system of pro-pharmaceutical dogma in which
patients' lives are put at risk by overzealous marketing and
prescribing of drugs," he said.


***

TC

In message <1168015751.936903.162810@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, TC wrote:

> "The fact that any FDA-approved drug can be legally prescribed for
> literally any health condition whatsoever - including those for which
> it has never been tested - makes a mockery of the so-called
> scientific medicine systems operating today," Adams said.
>
> "It is beyond explanation that a perfectly safe herb cannot be
> legally prescribed for any condition, yet a dangerous drug can be
> legally prescribed for every condition. This is not a system of
> medicine; it is a system of pro-pharmaceutical dogma in which
> patients' lives are put at risk by overzealous marketing and
> prescribing of drugs," he said.

So you're proposing that the same rules apply to both synthetic
and natural drugs? That both be prescribable only by MDs, that
the MDs be allowed to prescribe only for the conditions that the
substances were tested for, and that the same standards of
safety and efficacy be required before either can be marketed?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

PeterB wrote:
> Read all about it here:
>
> http://watersidesyndication.com/healthnews/?p=84

Problem is that even taking medicines for the indicated uses carries a
risk. Physicians should not be limited to using a drug for its
indicated use, but they become liable legally if they prescribe it for
some other use and problems occur, so many do not go there. If the
problem occurs due to recommended prescribing standards, it becomes the
drug company and not the physician who can be sued. Of course patients
could try also suing the physician, but they would lose. There are many
such cases. Another common case is the use of chloral hydrate, which is
a very safe sedative. Many dentists use the drug as a hypnotic however
doubling or tripling the dose in order to get noncooperative children
to stop fussing during dental treatment so much. The thing is, once
there is documentation of a problem, the prescribing for other uses
should stop. dkw

On 5 Jan 2007 19:16:31 -0800, dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>PeterB wrote:
>> Read all about it here:
>>
>> http://watersidesyndication.com/healthnews/?p=84
>
>Problem is that even taking medicines for the indicated uses carries a
>risk. Physicians should not be limited to using a drug for its
>indicated use, but they become liable legally if they prescribe it for
>some other use and problems occur, so many do not go there.

That's not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label

dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > Read all about it here:
> >
> > http://watersidesyndication.com/healthnews/?p=84
>
> Problem is that even taking medicines for the indicated uses carries a
> risk. Physicians should not be limited to using a drug for its
> indicated use, but they become liable legally if they prescribe it for
> some other use and problems occur, so many do not go there. If the
> problem occurs due to recommended prescribing standards, it becomes the
> drug company and not the physician who can be sued. Of course patients
> could try also suing the physician, but they would lose. There are many
> such cases. Another common case is the use of chloral hydrate, which is
> a very safe sedative. Many dentists use the drug as a hypnotic however
> doubling or tripling the dose in order to get noncooperative children
> to stop fussing during dental treatment so much. The thing is, once
> there is documentation of a problem, the prescribing for other uses
> should stop. dkw

Do you think if a patient dies or becomes severely disabled after a
doctor prescribes a drug for uses "not indicated" that such a doctor
might be "cured" of such stupidity? What does the fact that FDA
permits such idiocy tell you about its relationship to the drug makers?


PeterB