Evil In The Name Of (Drug Company) Business
How'd you like to take a drug that does fuck all for the illness you have, simply because some drug company marketed the hell out of it as something that cures your disease, and never mind that they have zero evidence it's effective for it? (Profit, baby, profit!)
And let me remind you, I'm a capitalist, not one of those people who thinks earning a profit is a terrible thing, and I'm extremely grateful for the Methylin (generic Ritaln) I take to help me focus and write despite my diagnosed ADHD.
(Personally, I don't see ADHD as a disease, but as a different sort of brain function, but as Martin Seligman pointed out at the Evolution of Psychotherapy conference, it's necessary to pathologize everything so insurance companies will pay for it and pay for drugs for it.)
But, back to the topic at hand, this three-page New England Journal of Medicine paper -- free at this SacBee link -- "The Neurontin Legacy -- Marketing through Misinformation and Manipulation," by C. Seth Landefeld, M.D., and Michael A. Steinman, M.D.
Landfeld and Steinman served as unpaid consultants to the the attorney of the plaintiff, the admirable David Franklin, a young biologist who quit his job at Parke-Davis (a division of Warner-Lambert) three months after being asked to promote Neurontin for illnesses it was not shown to cure. An excerpt from what they wrote:
On May 13, 2004, Warner-Lambert agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities. A class-action suit was filed the next day in federal court on behalf of private parties who had paid for illegally marketed Neurontin...The Neurontin cases have revealed the mechanisms of action of a comprehensive marketing campaign -- its goals and strategies, tactics and programs, and the participation of particular physicians and institutions. The campaign involved the systematic use of deception and misinformation to create a biased evidence base and manipulate physicians' beliefs and prescribing behaviors.
In a recently unsealed 318-page analysis of research sponsored by Parke-Davis, epidemiologist Kay Dickersin concluded that available documents demonstrate "a remarkable assemblage of evidence of reporting biases that amount to outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth concerning the effectiveness of Neurontin for migraine, bipolar disorders, and pain."3 For example, publication was delayed for a report on a multicenter, placebo-controlled study that found no effect of Neurontin on the primary outcome measure for neuropathic pain because "we [Parke-Davis employees] should take care not to publish anything that damages neurontin's marketing success." Ultimately, ghost-written manuscripts downplayed the lack of effect on the primary outcome and emphasized other outcomes and subgroup analyses that favored Neurontin. Although guest authorship and commercial bias in research are a well-recognized threat to scientific integrity, the documentation of comprehensive manipulation of research and publication related to Neurontin is remarkable.
What is Neurontin's legacy? First, we have learned that pharmaceutical marketing can be comprehensive, strategic, well financed, disguised as "education" and "research," influential, and very effective. Promotion of Neurontin was neither discrete, compartmentalized, nor readily apparent; instead, it was intercalated in nearly every aspect of physicians' professional lives, from the accoutrements of practice to lectures, professional meetings, and publications. Although some pharmaceutical marketing may be less opaque, deceptive, and manipulative, evidence indicates that drug promotion can corrupt the science, teaching, and practice of medicine.
Second, such comprehensive marketing involved many people and institutions that apparently failed to recognize the serious ethical and legal problems with their actions. Employees of Parke-Davis, the medical-education companies it hired, and many physicians (consultants, advisors, educators, and researchers) all participated knowingly. Universities, hospitals, professional organizations, and foundations also participated, and oversight agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Justice did not intervene quickly. Apparently, there was a shared acceptance that Parke-Davis's marketing was simply business as usual.
Finally, these cases substantiate the emerging conviction that "drastic action is essential" to preserve the integrity of medical science and practice and to justify public trust. We believe that such action should include the routine placement of legally discovered documents in the public domain, the study of such documents to inform strategies for minimizing abuses, the establishment of penalties that eliminate the profit to be gained through illegal marketing, and the independent public funding of peer-reviewed pharmaceutical research through a National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research that might be funded by a tax on all drug sales.
"Physician educator" Josh Freeman blogs at Medicine and Social Justice:
If David Franklin is the hero in this episode, the villains, in this particular case and overall in drug marketing, are the pharmaceutical companies who are willing to use any tactics to increase their enormous profits. The victims are clearly the patients who paid more for drugs that may have been ineffective, or no more effective than less expensive drugs (and, from their perspective in their class-action suit, the insurers who paid for these drugs). The facilitators, however, are the physicians who were too willing to take their information (as well as gifts, sometimes small, sometimes large) from pharmaceutical company representatives), rather than more reputable sources, and not pay attention to the principles of conservative prescribing (rule #1: use the drugs that we know are safe and work, be cautious of new "miracle drugs"). They are also certainly medical organizations, the paid physician flaks who gave the talks, and even the medical journals that uncritically published some of the company written studies. They are also, however, sometimes the patients themselves, living in a culture of NEW! BETTER! IMPROVED!, of Technology over All, who frequently beseech their physicians for something new, more effective, especially with regard to pain relief.We have met the enemy, and it is them. But, in the words of the immortal Pogo (Walt Kelly) it is also us. If they did before (and a frightening number did!) no physician should now have any business trusting pharmaceutical companies to be completely honest, nor believe that they owe use of new drugs to the "nice men and women" who are the drug reps, nor that drug samples (always, only the newest, most expensive drugs, never the old "standbys" or certainly anything available generically) are "free", nor most of all believe that they are not affected by advertising and gifts. All physicians and students should read not only this piece but the classic "A Social Science Perspective on Gifts to Physicians from Industry"[2] (free at this link) to understand the sublimal efficacy of these tactics. And patients (the medical word for "people") need to recognize this too, and demand not "new", but "best", defined as well-established, effective, and safe.
Here's a look at the potential human cost of taking an ineffective drug -- on a kid who committed suicide after taking Neurontin for his bipolar disease; maybe because of it, maybe not. We can't know for sure. But, if you have a disease, and you're prescribed a drugs, shouldn't it be because there's some reasonable, evidence-based belief it works for what you have? Snigdha Prakash writes at NPR:
Soon after Dustin Yankus was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2001, he was prescribed Neurontin. The Food and Drug Administration has never approved the drug as a treatment for bipolar disease, which is also known as manic depression. But as Prakash reports, some literature -- paid for mostly by the drugmaker and distributed to doctors -- suggested the drug had a favorable effect.In May 2002, the 16-year-old committed suicide. For the previous eight months, despite his complaints to doctors that the drug wasn't working, Dustin took Neurontin every day. He had a long history of psychiatric troubles, and was being treated with many drugs. It isn't known what role, if any, Neurontin played in Dustin's death. But his parents are left wondering why Dustin's doctors turned to that particular drug, without solid evidence that it worked.
And a final note, had Franklin not come forward, it's possible (and probably even likely) the fraudulent marketing of Neurontin would be continuing today.
What drugs are you taking? Are you wondering if they're really effective for what you have...or just really well-marketed? You should be.
Amy, thanks for posting this. You've given me something to think about here on the importance of proving the "effectiveness" of drugs (I posted on another thread a contradictory take). Certainly does give me a different perspective, I may have spoken too hastily before.
Diagnosed with PTSD two years ago (although, I'd had it since I was a kid it took decades to finally figure this out). I won't take meds any more for anxiety. Won't touch 'em --only the occasional muscle relaxer for back injury i got in gymnastics.
I've found therapy works much better for me. I've seen more improvement in 6 mo of therapy than i did on years of anxiety meds (even pre-diagnosis days). But everyone's different.
I took Lexapro, and it worked quite well at first. My "doctor" at the time thought it would be really great to give a patient with PTSD a drug that has been known to induce alcohol cravings. Hmmm. Not so much.
I hear Lexapro works really well for some people.
Feebie at July 22, 2009 12:36 AM
Used to work at Parke Davis. The lower level scientists were decent people, but to rise you have to leave ethics behind. Then they were bought out by the even less ethical Pfizer.
I used to love working in drug development-I felt I was helping people. Most drug company execs are not scientists (lots of MBAs and lawyers) and lack the basics of what makes research good. Still love science and what it could do for us, if it had a chance.
Ruth at July 22, 2009 6:26 AM
I take Advil once in a while if I have a headache or my shoulder bothers me. I take nothing else. I'm not on any meds of any kind. I took Prozac a long time ago for depression, while I was seeing a psychologist (sp?) for depression; this was shortly after my divorce. I was still smoking pot at the time as well, but after about a year, I took myself off the Prozac, told the dr I was feeling better, and never looked back. I've taken Vicodin for pain, once, right before I had an absessed tooth pulled. But man, some of the commercials I see on TV for drugs, the side effects are worse than the symptons the drug is supposed to treat! None for me, thanks, I'm driving. o.O
Flynne at July 22, 2009 7:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/22/evil_in_the_nam.html#comment-1659420">comment from RuthThanks for posting your experience, Ruth. A friend of mine who's an epidemiologist tells me (and sends me links to) a great deal of drug company malfeasance. It's why I posted this. There's a great deal of trust of drug companies and it's not warranted. I, too, love science, and what it can do for us. This sure ain't science.
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2009 7:18 AM
I'm not going to bash big pharma, because I still believe the good they do outweighs the harm. I'd not like living in an era where a minor infection could be a death sentence, where kids got polio and spent their lives in an iron lung, where diabetics died because nothing could be done... You know, the era before these big evil drug companies.
In this case, I think some Club Fed time is in order. I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like fraud to me and it ought to be prosecuted.
Your point about skepticism is quite healthy, and it extends far beyond the drug companies. The only person who has your best interest at heart is you.
MarkD at July 22, 2009 7:24 AM
In general, improvements to caveat emptor aren't. At the moment, the Kefauver amendment (which added "effective" to "safe" in the basic criteria for FDA licensing) is under discussion as something we might be better off without. On general libertarian principles I agree, and since that conclusion goes against the seeming point of this article, I thought I'd mention it.
So what do we want? A competitive market in quality information about pharmaceutical effectiveness, or ONE politically driven arbiter thereof? Me, I'll go with the Consumer Reports model and pay for it happily as long as I remain convinced that they work for me.
--
phunctor
phunctor at July 22, 2009 7:52 AM
I agree with Feebie's earlier comment that we should be free to buy drugs that have not been proven effective. That doesn't excuse lying to say that a drug has been proven effective when it has not.
Pseudonym at July 22, 2009 8:22 AM
I always do my own research on what I'm prescribed. I've just about crossed antibiotics off my list for anything non-lifethreatening. I had toxic shock as a teen, and was on antibiotics for almost 6 weeks total, and developed allergic reactions as a result to almost any antibiotic. For sinus infections or sore throats, I use salt water flushes. They work great. For strep, I'd do antibiotics since it can cause heart damage if untreated.
I'm on generic zoloft. SSRI's have been pretty well researched, and the side effects are documented, and while they don't work for everyone, they're helping me right now. DH stays on lexapro for anxiety. It works for him, although I didn't know about the alcohol craving thing. I'll have to look that up-that may explain the drinking,
But the bottom line is, my health is my ultimate responsibility. Researching things I take past just hearing the Dr say "take it" is my responsibility. Prosecuting and jailing people/companies that flat-out lie, making researching it impossible, is the government's job.
momof4 at July 22, 2009 8:41 AM
I was presribed Neurontin in 2006 for the migraines that I've been suffering from ever since a car accident in 2005. I took it once, got the worst migraine I've ever had, and promptly discarded the rest of the prescription. I'm glad that I haven't been taking this for the past 3 years based on some flimsy efficacy assertions made by a few greedy pharma execs!
I'd like any drugs (or other medical treatments) I am prescibed to have been demonstrated effective and safe by unbaised researchers.
lindsayloo at July 22, 2009 8:50 AM
And to be fair to both my doctor and myself, he told me that prescribing Neurontin for migraines was off-label. This is partly why I was so quick to refuse to take it. A couple of years later, I was prescribed Depakote, also off-label, I think. I did some research before starting it and learned that an uncommon, but possible, side effect is polycystic ovaries, a condition that can cause infertility. When I refused that presciption five minutes into my next appt, asking if there were any non-pharmacutical interventions he would recommend, this neurologist informed me that our meeting was over. You're welcome for my $50 copay.
lindsayloo at July 22, 2009 9:03 AM
I like having effective treatments, too. I have the background to read the original papers and make my choices. Most people don't have that option.
The science being done now is amazing (I'm learning mammalian cell culture this summer) but the business model is not working. I would rather get smaller dividends from Pfizer stock and have rational, ethical research being done.
Ruth at July 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Ruth, I have a question if you wouldn't mind giving me your take...
Have there been any significate advances in drug testing since the 60's? Any thing to make the testing quicker? Less expensive? More reliable?
Feebie at July 22, 2009 9:50 AM
(jeez o pete) Significant, is what i meant to say.
Feebie at July 22, 2009 9:51 AM
I currently take Generic Neurontin for neuropathic pain, among other meds (about 1800 MG a day total) and have for years (Since about 2002).
Previously I was taking tr-cyclic antidepressants for the pain and the side effects were awful. Cotton mouth, dizziness, etc. I was at the end of my rope when I started taking the Neurontin.
I do think that Neurontin has had some positive effects for me, however I am at the point where I am beginning to see the path that I am on. My regular doctors don't want to address the causes of my pain, and my pain management doctors just want to prescribe pills. A few weeks ago my doctor prescribed a barbiturate for severe headaches (caused by trigger points. I didn't take the pills)...I need to get off of all of these pills.
The difficulty is that without my pain medication I am in agonizing pain. I think that falsifying study results and treating chronic pain sufferers and the mentally ill (who are generally desperate anyhow) as a golden goose is beyond unconscionable.
Sounds to me like it is time to pull out my pain journal and start weening myself off of Neurontin and see what happens. I don't know how many people have the guts to try that, which is a shame.
-Julie
Julie at July 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Lindsay - you're better off without that doctor then. My family's doctor (we all use the same guy) has said to my mother "You read too much", but he respects that.
Some doctors have the whole God complex going, and can't handle the idea of a "layman" challenging their authoritah.
brian at July 22, 2009 10:41 AM
Some related points:
1. Imagine how much worse this could be if we had a socialized medical service using medicines developed by socialized/government managed pharma companies.
Anybody think it would be easier to get the truth from government ass-coverers?
2. It's Our Fault - because our instant-gratification culture has led to pill popping instead of real self-maintenance. And in capitalism it's "give the lady what she wants".
Sure, physicians should do more due diligence and seek objective info - but for every uppity doctor who thinks their patients read too much, there are probably 4 or 5 idiot patients who:
(a) don't want to hear about long-term self care, they want their symptoms relieved NOW, and without any effort or willpower on their part.
and/or
(b) don't feel they've gotten their money's worth unless they leave with a prescription in hand.
3. Everyone should have as their goal the elimination of regular medication. Medicines should be used sparingly for acute cases.
It is well established that drug interaction and side-effects create a waterfall effect that weakens the body's systems. This commonly happens as people enter middle age, and start accruing various medications (from various doctors). Then they cling to this expanding regime as they get older.
Often such people get better simply because a doctor has reviewed their meds and eliminated many of them.
Ben-David at July 22, 2009 11:04 AM
Ben, agreed. Not until I removed all my medications did I realize there were so many things (chronic allergies and asthma) that went away with them.
good post.
Feebie at July 22, 2009 11:51 AM
Google "number needed to treat" and you will find out that even the drugs precribed on label are pretty ineffective. If a thousand people are on a major blood pressure medication and another thousand are not and there are two less strokes in the group on the medicatation the drug is considered effective. I would have to see more evidence than that before I agree to take anything I don't really need. Currently that is Synthroid and nothing else. Isabel
Isabel1130 at July 22, 2009 11:52 AM
I don't take any prescription drugs and haven't for years. The last one I was on was the pill and I was on the lowest dosage available which still worked, which I decided upon before going to my doctor. I figured it had been on the market for around 40 years now so I'll take a chance!
The non-science of the pharmas has been common knowledge for years, so I've always refused whatever my doctor tried to prescribe. I'd only go in if I needed some tests run, or wanted a drug or procedure, so my doc was only my personal lab assistant to my own research. My body and my health is my personal responsibility, and I know I need to take care of what I've got, not go running in and hope they can salvage a wreck.
Chrissy at July 22, 2009 12:56 PM
Why spend time screwing around with the small change Neurontin means to Big Pharma when you could go after statins, the drug class that makes the greatest amount of money for the pharmaceutical industry?
Although it seems that we are bombarded daily with stories of yet more studies 'proving' the efficacy of statins for countless health problems, the truth is that randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (the only kind that really count) have shown statins to be ineffective for women in decreasing all-cause mortality (again, the only statistic that really counts; so what if you don't die of heart disease, but die of cancer instead?) and ineffective in men other than the small subset who have been diagnosed with heart disease before the age of 65. Even in that group statin efficacy is marginal at best. And diagnosed with heart disease means diagnosed with heart disease, not simply an elevated cholesterol reading. Elevated cholesterol readings are lab values, not a disease.
Despite the small number of people who truly might benefit from stain therapy, the drugs are prescribed for millions. Sadly, statins are not only expensive but come fraught with many side effects, some of which are fatal.
Michael Eades at July 22, 2009 1:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/22/evil_in_the_nam.html#comment-1659507">comment from Michael EadesThanks for posting that, Dr. Eades. The truth is, medicine isn't my area -- I just know people who point me in the right direction about such things. I believe I read something on your site or that you'd linked to the other day about statins.
The Neurontin thing might not be a drug many people use, but it's a good example of the abuses I've learned go on, mostly through a mutual friend of Taubes and mine. The lack of science in many areas of medicine is extremely disturbing to me, and I highlight examples when I can. If you have a link to a piece about statins, please feel free to post it here or send me things and I'll link to them.
Amy Alkon at July 22, 2009 2:28 PM
Just to weigh in with a contrary experience: I take Advair for asthma and the difference is like night and day. Now I can exercise without my emergency inhaler, and I don't even remember the last time I used it.
The fact is, with most drugs nobody can guarantee what benefits or side effects you will experience. People are different and we don't understand the mechanism of action of most of the drugs out there. For a drug I might take, I'm not willing to wait for decades for statistical evidence of effectiveness; once evidence of safety has been established I'm willing to try it, pending a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately in many cases the government is not willing to let me because it thinks it knows what's good for me. Furthermore, evidence of safety is my personal choice and shouldn't be forced on everyone because it's variable depending on the situation: if I had a disease that will kill me in 3 months, then long term side effects of treatment become less important. It's impossible to codify every special situation and exception, so we should leave it up to individuals to decide.
Pseudonym at July 22, 2009 2:44 PM
It helped me with pain after surgery.
ParatrooperJJ at July 22, 2009 2:52 PM
The solution is pretty simple really.
Eliminate marketing.
These are drugs we're talking about here, not custom doilies.
Eliminate direct marketing to doctors, and permit only disinterested 3rd party studies not paid for and holding no interest in the pharmacutical companies. Eliminate conflicts of interest and misinformation.
Mandate full disclosure of ties to pharmacutical companies by regulatory or practicing personnel. Does your doctor hold stock in the company that makes whateveratol? Wouldn't you like to know that his prescription for that is NOT based out of any desire to see that company make more money?
Sad fact is that conflicts of interest are increasingly common between regulatory and practicing personnel in many fields, and the companies with which they are meant to interact.
Bar the holding of stock in medical tech & pharmacutical companies by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. Bar subsequent employment by those same parties if one is in a position to influence patient care in their direction.
Follow where I'm going with all this? Get rid of the conflicts of interest and you'll see many of these problems decrease in number and scope.
Robert at July 23, 2009 4:19 AM
I don't want to list everything I take here, because it's kind of depressing to have such a long list at under 30, but I will mention the drug I hate the most: Topamax.
It's even about to become generic too, because of how "great" it is. I read all the literature that comes with my prescriptions, I noticed that under the "a very slight number of people experience" list was some pretty odd things, but took it anyways because I was tired of being in the ER because of my migraines (pain = vomit, three days of no water = ER).
When I started getting sick, I didn't think it was the topamax at first, but then I went online and found vast archives of people reporting terrible things. When I went to independent research some of these "very slight" numbers of people were up to 50% of people that took the medication.
I lost all sense of taste and smell. I lost feeling my face and arms. I started vomiting blood. These happened over time, and it took months for me to finally get my sense of taste back. It was a pretty frightening time for me. When I went to the doctor to complain and report the symptoms he was shocked, looked up the drug in his big book of FDA drugs and side effects, and it was barely mentioned. The FDA tests had been over 10 years ago, nothing new had been added.
Some of the other people I connected with over this drug lost the ability to communicate and had been in speech therapy for years, or became deeply depressed and suicidal because it alters brain chemistry. I can't believe this crap didn't have some sort of GIANT warning on it. Sure, people get relief for it, sometimes, but be honest about my chances of getting these side effects.
My other meds are ok. I wish I lived in a state where I could choose weed over my morphine though, I've heard it's a lot better for my symptoms and I've a lot less likely to wind up in rehab. I wouldn’t smoke it, but I’ve heard air infusers work great.
Stacy at July 23, 2009 3:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/22/evil_in_the_nam.html#comment-1659635">comment from StacyI wouldn’t smoke it, but I’ve heard air infusers work great.
A scientist friend of mine uses one, and it seems to (I hate how pot makes me feel, so I've never tried his vaporizer). He says it takes a little practice at first.
And so sorry to hear what you went through, but glad you posted here. Your experience is similar to mine with "conscious sedation." Oh, Miss Alkon, most people get through this just fine. Well, that's just jolly if you're like "most people" (assuming that "most people" is actually even true).
My friend the epidemiologist taught me a term: Iatrogenisis -- that's when the doctor makes you sick: adverse effects from medical treatment or advice. Remember, drugs have side-effects, drugs have side-effects. There's a price to pay for that cure, and sometimes it's that it isn't a cure at all, but something that will make you sicker while making the company that produces it richer, and maybe that's news to them -- or maybe that's news they suppressed.
Amy Alkon at July 23, 2009 4:35 PM
An excellent book on this topic is 'Limits to Medicine' by Ivan Illich.
Chrissy at July 24, 2009 6:30 AM
Stacy, your experiences on Topamax are interesting- I was actually just about to post how happy I am on it when I read yours.
I take an extremely low dose (25mg, and I often skip days) for migraines (sounds like mine were not nearly as severe as yours- I was never hospitalized, just had crappy, crappy days whenever the weather changed). I've noticed no side effects and a drastic reduction in the headaches and associated dizziness.
I think that's important to note, though. This is why we have so many drugs, and so many that purport to do the same thing. For whatever reasons, ones we don't even come close to fully understanding, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for others. Options are good.
Amy- what you said about pot is funny to me; I was just posting a couple weeks ago on a Slate article about vaporizers that I absolutely can't stand it and wouldn't use it even for medical reasons. I've always suspected that I'm especially sensitive to it for some reason. Anesthesia is known to affect redheads differently than others (though usually it's less effective); I wonder if pot tends to affect us differently, too?
Lyssa, Lovely Redhead at July 24, 2009 6:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/22/evil_in_the_nam.html#comment-1659681">comment from Lyssa, Lovely RedheadAnesthesia is known to affect redheads differently than others (though usually it's less effective); I wonder if pot tends to affect us differently, too?
This redhead gets carsick from her own driving, heatstroke if it's 78 degress (okay not that bad, but heat and I are not friends), and if I haven't eaten, two glasses of wine are way too much.
Amy Alkon at July 24, 2009 7:14 AM
I don't think Topamax should be taken off the market, I've heard from lots of people that it really helped. Actually, I think it did help my headaches themselves. I just wish that they had included statistics or been more clear in their packaging about how many people get the more severe side effects. Independent studies show that about 50% of people on it had taste changes, usually smaller things like all soda tastes flat or chocolate is no longer as sweet. Yet "loss of taste or taste changes" is in the "very rarely" category on it's packaging. Obviously my reaction to it was extreme, but I kept taking the pills because I honestly didn't think that what was causing it until I did my own research.
Then again, all I've learned from it is don't trust my doctor or the packaging, do the research myself, and I suppose that isn't such a bad idea in any case.
Stacy at July 24, 2009 10:38 AM
I am wary of drugs from a standpoint of being on almost everything for twice diagnosed bi-polar. I have been a living guinea pig; from rapidly putting on weight (50 lbs in 8 months) bloating, balding layers of acne, mental fog, cognitive slowing and disorientation. Enough is enough.
And what scares me is that senior citizens are not supposed to be on these heavy medications because they seem to be knocked off soon there after. To be or not to be on meds is deeply personal (while there are benefits there are many non-benefits that accompany every drug) at least in my case. hang in there and do your own research.
Sienna Alverado at July 24, 2009 8:41 PM
Leave a comment