PHYSorg . com

Enlarge

Graphic shows some deadly drugs banned by the FDA.

(AP) -- Dozens of deaths have been linked to medications that have never been reviewed by the government for safety and effectiveness but are still covered under Medicaid, an Associated Press analysis of federal data has found.

• Off-label medicine combinations are the predominant treatment in survey of schizophrenics
  Sep 10, 2008 | not rated yet | no comments yet
• Researchers seek to focus attention upon the distributors of human growth hormone
  Jun 17, 2008 | not rated yet | no comments yet
• Stanford researcher criticizes FDA plans to reduce oversight of off-label drug use
  Apr 03, 2008 | not rated yet | no comments yet
• FDA warns about dietary supplements
  Mar 26, 2008 | not rated yet | no comments yet
• FDA concerned about some STD medications
  Mar 10, 2008 | not rated yet | no comments yet

• DavidRochlin - Nov 24, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 4.7 / 5 after 3 votes
  • rate
  • flag
  Does the Author then advocate a ban of asprin?
  This story lacks perspective. There are many drugs that predate any FDA approval process or FDA for that matter. Just as some herbal medicines used for thousands of years, may have real theraputic value, so do some of these unapproved drugs. Unapproved does not mean obsolete or bad. Furthermore, valuable patents are the only incentive for a drug manufacturer to spend hundreds of millions or billions on a drug approval process. Requiring one simply amounts to banning the drug. Who would pay $2 billion to try to get some niche drug, used by a few thousand eighty year olds, for 60 years, approved by the FDA?
  Should we be deprived of our own Western heritage of folk medicines?
  The fact is that the FDA drug approval process, sometimes better and sometimes worse, over the decades, is now more or less broken. Getting a drug approved is now prohibitively expensive, even for Pharm giants with expectations of lucrative patents. Little drugs like these, in the public domain, don't have a prayer of approval, regardless of efficacy.
• bmcghie - Nov 24, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 after 1 vote
  • rate
  • flag
  "Dozens of deaths have been linked to them. " So why should we care? I'm pretty sure you could save more lives spending this money elsewhere.
• fleem - Nov 24, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  • flag
  The masses will see this in a headline and gasp, "Oh how horrible! There oughta be a law!".
• Velanarris - Nov 24, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  • flag
  As is typical, the haves test their new and "dangerous" drugs on the have nots.
  
  Welcome to the world. Human trials start with the poorest, not the most affluent. When the drug is proven to work well and is valuable, the haves can afford the "safer" version, while the have-nots cannot afford it whatsoever.
• richgibula - Nov 24, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  • flag
  Some of these drugs have been in use for a long time, probably longer than aspirin. Some do need to go, but some do not have a ready alternative, such as quinine. There are many people that have tried alternatives, but can't sleep due to their leg cramps.