Lexapro

[Crankin]

I tend to agree with everything ZenSoujourner said (in a much more eloquent way than I could).
You are lucky if you can take SSRIs or any other medication with no side effects. I have side effects with everything. If I ever get heart disease or several other things that require medication, I will be in serious trouble because I can't take things that have the stuff that causes "serious digestive problems." It's in so many things that it seems crazy. I almost had to be hospitalized when I tried Fossomax about 7 or 8 years ago. Last year, when I was having all my medical issues, I tried two SSRIs... bad, bad, bad. I felt worse than the original problem that lead me to trying them. Let's see, oh yes, I am also allergic to iodine, hence IV contrast dye, so if i ever need a cardiac stress test, angiogram, etc who knows what they will do. Guess I'd better keep riding!

[jobob]

What's your educational background and what do you do for a living, ZenS?

I have a PhD in biochemistry and I used to work as a research scientist, until I went over to the dark side (as it were) and I now work on patents at a biotech company which is developing protein-based pharmaceuticals.

Possegal is also a PhD in the pharmacology field - I don't remember what she does exactly (and if she said on this thread, I'm too lazy to go back right now and look).

What I'm getting at is that we both work in the field. And I know (and I assume PG also knows) people who work in "the trenches" , as it were, working on the development of pharmaceuticals which, if all goes well (big if), will improve and possibly save some lives in the future. And no, the people I know and work with are not conniving manipulators trying to pull a fast one over unsuspecting patients in order to turn a buck.

ZenS, you've had some very unfortunate experiences with your father's meds. I'm not downplaying that in the least, and it sounds like the current state of drug dispensing for elder patients is disgraceful.

But wrapping this up into a big indictment of pharmaceutical companies?

I'm curious how you reached your conclusions. You do have some sort of background in the medical / pharmaceutical area?

Because to be honest, some of your comments are so off the wall that, to use your own term, they're bull.

[ZenSojourner]

Jobob, I don't doubt that you may be well-intentioned. But good intentions do not make up for facts.

I cited specific evidence. You reject the evidence out of hand. Heck, you flat out pretend it doesn't EXIST. Snagging the example of my father's med problems and waving it around like a red flag as if it were the main issue is just an attempt to distract from the facts presented. My views of the pharmaceutical industry have little to do with my dad's condition and med problems, or even my own, but with the way Big Pharma has typically handled marketing and testing of drugs, a subject which I have followed for over 20 years.

Trying to imply that only people who have chemistry degrees and work in the pharmaceutical industry are suited to evaluate that industry is disingenous. I have a brain, and I use it. And yes, I have the educational background to be able to evaluate the facts. I have a background in biology, medical research, computer and engineering technology, and psychology.

Telling people they can't have an informed opinion because they don't work for a pharmaceutical company is ludicrous. Using loaded terms like "off the wall" to describe the facts presented doesn't change those facts. Go read the memos Eli Lilly was passing around in their attempt to soft-pedal the problems with Prozac; THAT'S off the wall.

That said, there is a distinction to be drawn between chemists/biochemists working directly on the development of a drug and the marketing weenies who make the decisions about how to present the drug to the FDA and to the public. By your own lights, since you don't work in marketing, you must not be qualified to speak to issues of marketing and decisions made at the corporate level.

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I am not accusing you personally or anyone else who has posted here of malfeasance; the problem lies outside of the venue of research, and is more correctly to be attributed to corporate policies and marketing concerns.

[jobob]

Fair enough.

I didn't address the memos you quoted since I didn't have my back brace on yet and my husband was nagging me to either put it on or go lay down (heh, laziness won, I chose the latter).

And I know you have a brain. I just wanted to point out that some here work in the pharma industry. Now, that said, I don't work in marketing which might be where some of you're issues are coming from. And I don't know jack about marketing.

I work in patents, which has is own issues, some of which I've come to question. The exclusivity that comes from patents, for instance. Sometimes I wonder if that's such a great idea. Drugs under patent cost a bundle, as opposed to generic drugs (for which the patents have expired). But then, how will the company that develops the patented drug in the first place recoup its cost and make a profit to make it worth the company's while? Many drugs, theoretically promising ones, don't make it past clinical trials and its a very large investment for each one so the pharma co's need some way to make up for not only the cost of developing the drug that is actually marketed, but all of the other drugs that never got that far but that they still spent a bundle on. Oh yeah, and have a reason to exist in this day & age (i.e., make profits, at least eventually) .

So that's where the exclusivity from patents comes in. If the pharma co didn't have that exclusivity period (roughly 20 years starting from when the patent application was filed, give or take a few years for a number of reasons [Ed. to add - the exclusivity period is way less than 20 years once the patented drug finally reaches the market btw]), then another company would be able to make and sell that drug right away without having to do the background research & development work, so they'd be able to sell it for a much lower cost and the original pharma co would never make anything off of their original investment.

But that doesn't help the consumers' bottom line much. What's the answer? Gah. Corporations vs public funding? I suppose if it were all government funded then there would be no need to cover costs and no profit motive (and Yes I'm laughing at myself as I'm typing this). Of course then taxpayers would be funding the pharma industry (waaay more than it does now) which would probably mean an increase in taxes and I shall not go there.

Complicated stuff, unfortunately.

[Triskeliongirl]

I've avoid chiming in here, but at this point I can't help it. I don't work in big pharma, and I know nothing about marketing. What I do know about is biochemistry, pharmacology and neuroscience. I have a PhD in biochemistry and I teach and run a research lab at a major research university.

The goal of developing better therapeutics is always to make drugs that will do what we want them to without side effects. I don't believe for a minute that big pharma markets drugs with side effects in order to sell more drugs. I agree with the earlier comments that the human body is so complicated, that it is extremely difficult to develop a drug that just effects what we want it to without any side effects. It's because our bodies use common pathways/mechanisms, etc. to carry out many different functions, that to specially inhibit only one of those functions and not any others is nearly impossible.

With that being said, I also think big pharma over markets pharmacological interventions, as an observer seeing all the commercials we are inundated with on TV. But we all have a choice, and whether we do or don't choose pharmacological interventions depends on the problem. I am hypothyroid and would not for a minute consider doing anything other than taking thyroid meds. But, I am also hypoinsulinemic, and find that as long as I don't challenge my body with too much carbohydrate, exercise, and maintain a normal body weight, that I can avoid taking insulin, so I do that.