digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Government Pays Millions For Unapproved Drugs!

physorg.com — Taxpayers have shelled out at least $200 million since 2004 for 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. Millions of private patients are taking such drugs, as well.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 24, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

41 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 11/23/2008, -3/+13The scariest thing is, even many of the approved drugs have been linked to serious problems. I don't know if the FDA's seal of approval would make me feel much better.
  • kareemachan, on 11/23/2008, -3/+8The fact that the FDA hasn't had the money it needs from this Administration to oversee drugs (as well as other programs) shouldn't have any of us sleeping too well. And why isn't there more brouhaha about this? Well, the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget instituted a rule–see Section 22 of Circular A-11– forbidding government employees from criticizing or disagreeing with the president’s budget, and saying so to Congress. Hard to press for more money to run programs if you can't come out and say why. The fact that Shrub has made it a no-no to disagree with him - even if you have information that may materially affect the situation - is VERY scary.
  • AnonBuffalo, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Huh? I thought a weed response would have been the second comment.
  • loaff, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Take your complaint up with the DEA.
  • Dumbledorito, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4Why not go back to the earliest forms of medicine, from the great thinker, Pliny the Elder?

    Need to cure epilepsy? Have some dried camel brain in vinegar or gall taken with honey.
    Abscesses can be taken care of with hippo hide reduced to ash.
    Have a crying baby keeping you up? Tie a wolf tooth amulet around its neck.
    Got a bad cold? Kiss a mule's muzzle.

    More from ol' Pliny here: http://www.jubilat.org/n9/pliny.html

    Meanwhile, I'll have some vaccines, modern pain-killers, an other treatments from a laboratory and lots of rigorous testing. Sure, a lot of drugs can be harmful, and I'm loathe to start popping pills at the drop of a hat. However, I'll take that over herbs, incense and poultices that come with iron-clad approval from my local hedge wizard, thanks.
  • AnonBuffalo, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3I read this earlier today and it was really ambiguous as what it defines to be unapproved drugs. Some drugs are commonly used for unapproved things. For example, a drug like gabapentin is used to treat diabetic neuropathy. It it not approved for that however. It is only approved to treat seizures, though in 99.9% of cases people use to to treat neuropathy.

    Now, about 2 years ago, Pfizer came out with a drug called lyrica, and got it FDA approved to treat diabetic neuropathy. It is structurally prety much the same as gabapentin and works by the same mechanism and to about the same extent. The biggest difference, the price. Gabapentin cost about $20 a month while lyrica is about $150.

    Now, which would you rather have you tax dollars cover, a $150 dollar drug that is approved for a condition, or a $20 drug that treat the condition the same way.

    Along those lines, lots of drugs were grandfathered in unapproved in the 60's (I think ) when the FDA was established. Thinks like aspirin and warfarin along with some others never underwent the clinical trials. Should we rid ourselves of these life saving medications because they never got propper approval?
  • graeh, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4I'm sure when you're in need of a liver transplant, or an apendectomy, your "wellness" solution will totally be the first thing on your list.

    Idiot.
  • roho76, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Man I can't wait to get free Government Health Care. That ***** is going to be sweet. Who cares if it's approved. We all know the Government knows what drugs are best for us, not the Doctors.

    National Health Care support argument: "But the FDA has Doctors that make sure the products we receive are good for us. So you see Government health care is good for everybody."
  • eleraama, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, the reality is that it takes many millions of dollars and several years to complete the testing required for FDA approval. Meanwhile, people are suffering because they can't get the drug they need. Despite what people like to claim, drug manufacturers are not out to screw us all over. If a medicine killed people, doctors would stop prescribing it and the drug company wouldn't make any money. And just because there's a listed side affect doesn't mean that's going to happen to you– if the same thing happens to two people during the trial, regardless of whether or not it is related to the drug, it must get listed. (A prescription I'm taking lists "Tourette-like syndromes"; do you honestly think I'd still take it if that was happening to me?)
  • Heapbasket, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2If the treatment works, but the FDA hasn't approved it yet; go ahead. I hate to bring it up, but marijuana is still considered a drug of no medicinal value and that is far from true.
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3It could have all gone toward legalizing and growing marijuana - and then actually making money for the government instead if spending it.
  • sybarite, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2We do that in Australia too. Say you have a rare cancer or HIV infection and you've burnt through existing treatment options. You're near the end of your life so the long-term safety of an experimental treatment isn't high on your list of concerns. Pharmaceutical companies actually release some such chemicals prior to the development of final formulations and they're unlicensed and off-label, but there are people walking around today who wouldn't have been if this practice didn't occur. (And some corpses with very interesting chemicals in them.)
  • billpilgrim, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2I'm just going to solve everybody's problems and say you should legalize pot.
  • LeepII, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2No weed is illegal because of two patents. One for a machine that could mechanically remove hemp fibers from a plant, and one is for nylon. I'll let you figure out the rest.
  • DJMattB241, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Because of course the FDA is keeping us safe. Thank god for that.
  • fullback, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I had a couple of thoughts yesterday that were never submitted for government approval.
  • theskillwithin, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3The only reason the FDA WEBSITE has for WEED being ILLEGAL is that it has NO MEDICAL benefit. HOWEVER IT DOES, AND IT IS MUCH SAFER and has less side-effects than the pharmisutical drugs it does approve. this is the ONLY LEGAL GROUNDS for it being illegal, according to the FDA.
  • pintomp3, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2b b but government oversight is a bad thing! we should leave everything up to big pharma and the free market.

    /sarcarsm
  • theskillwithin, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1im sorry i couldn't get here faster
  • theskillwithin, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1The DEA only enforces drug laws. the FDA help to make them. The scheduling system bypasses due process by making drugs illegal without congress.
  • roho76, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I'm so offended by CAPSLOCK that I have to bitch about it.
    Seriously why do people bitch about this?
    Does it really matter?
    Does it give you seizures?
    If so, I believe the FDA has a medication for that. You should ask your FDA case worker about any CAPSLOCK medication programs they are doing human trials on.
  • JesseJ, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Oh like in the other thread where scientists make new discoveries in how to actually utilize marihuana as real pain killers and as actual medicine and the news is followed by 1200 Cheech&Chong jokes? Until that stops, it will never be legalized.
  • Stoneman89, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1The Revolution pot just got a few degrees higher
  • kareemachan, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Not completely. Yes, this was going on before, but it would have been nice if Shrub had stepped up to the plate to help get rid of this problem. He didn't, though, and cut funding instead. And that nice little rule that duct taped federal employees' mouths when they might have made a difference - such a nice little touch to effectively silence any criticism.
    Shrub with fingers in ears saying "la-la-la-la - I can't hear you..."
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I don't think the word "approval" means what you think it means.
  • dravo2, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1It's bad enough the health care system is in such bad shape now there's medications on the market that are not only ineffective but actually are harmful to people and in cases death to the patient . It seems like a double edged sword, the powers that be want to get medications to patients as cheaply and fast as possible, and the drug companies want to get them out as soon as possible for quick profits. And then there are medications given to patients just to counteract the side affects of some of the other medications they take,where does it end? death I suppose.
  • jdpugsle, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2People are not stupid, people are going to figure out that the majority of drugs on the market are not safe. Perscription drugs in this country taken far too much in this country. This one of the most medicated countries in the world. Americans are as a whole are far too dependant on the FDA & on drugs that is the biggest problem. They will eventually go broke. Because people need to quit taking them. Really, there are far better alternatives then taking perscription drugs.
  • erichh, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1"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.
  • Mujokan, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1More corporate welfare from Bush.
  • slapthemonkey, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1Shocking
  • algaeturd, on 11/24/2008, -1/+1When does the corruption and abuse of our tax money end? Seriously. This ***** isn't funny anymore.
  • kareemachan, on 11/23/2008, -4/+3The fact that the FDA hasn't had the money it needs from this Administration to oversee drugs (as well as other programs) shouldn't have any of us sleeping too well. And why isn't there more brouhaha about this? Well, the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget instituted a rule–see Section 22 of the snoozily named Circular A-11– forbidding government employees from criticizing or disagreeing with the president’s budget, and saying so to Congress. Hard to press for more money to run programs if you can't come out and say that the Prez's budget wasn't enough....
  • synergye, on 11/24/2008, -2/+1The FDA still approves fewer drugs than most other European countries (Great Britain for instance), and possibly because of that we have very few instances problems with drugs after approval.
    I'm not saying that the system is perfect, or that it's good we don't approve many drugs, just that the FDA is doing a better job than in a lot of other places.
  • kemp34, on 11/24/2008, -8/+3Don't mess with this crap. Medicate naturally as much as possible.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.