FDA approves harmful ingredients in food, drink

[David1949]

FDA approves harmful ingredients in food, drink


Is this the same FDA that approved the CRAB drugs?

Hmmmm glad I don't use them.

[HarryZ]

FDA approves harmful ingredients in food, drink


Is this the same FDA that approved the CRAB drugs?

Hmmmm glad I don't use them.

Not sure if you remember when the CRAB drugs first started to get approved in the early 90's. The neuros, paid by the drug companies, gave local seminars for these new medications and brought their fancy charts to show how good these drugs were and how much they helped MS patients. All approved by the FDA!

Now we know how minimal the efficacy of the CRAB drugs really are and how many side effects many users encounter while using them. When Tysabri first got approved, many neuros commented that we could now get rid of the CRABs which really didn't do much for MS patients after all. And we all know how quickly they had to change their comments when Tysabri got pulled soon after and the patients had to go back or continue to use the CRABs.

So much for the FDA protecting us!!

Harry

[dlynn]

David1949,
glad I don't use them (anymore) either. 5yrs. was way too long!

[bifrostlake]

The truth is the FDA isn't allowing dangerous chemicals into our food. This is a case of another author trying to create a false controversy in order to sell a book. Big surprise there!

To put this video into a less hyperbolic perspective, here are the actual facts about the contested chemicals used as additives in food and drink: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... cation.php

What's apparent is that Chemistry is not the author's (who isn't an actual MD) forte. As the site points out, he makes the mistake (among other errors) of confusing a chemical's elemental form (bromine) with its ions (bromide and bromate).

The choice of using DMTs or not must be an informed choice. Recent studies have shown that treating MS early with DMTs slows down progression:

http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis ... -treatment

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22496198

Medical decisions shouldn't be based on erroneous information. Unfortunately, the media perpetuates quite a bit of it and this video is a good example.

[HarryZ]

The choice of using DMTs or not must be an informed choice. Recent studies have shown that treating MS early with DMTs slows down progression:

As one study showed, 327 MS patients using Interferon studied over 21 years show a 46.8 % reduction in hazard of mortality over palcebo!! So instead of 10 MS patients dying in any one group, only 6 patients would have died if they took Interferon. And what the heck does this mean when it comes to living with MS?!!

The comparison was done with patients who used a placebo (of unknown nature). Why wasn't a comparison done with patients who used nothing or perhaps alternative medicine? The very nature of MS being remitting and relapsing kind of makes these studies irrelevant unless of course you are the one selling Interferon to MS patients.

Medical decisions shouldn't be based on erroneous information. Unfortunately, the media perpetuates quite a bit of it and this video is a good example.

I totally agree. I guess this is why the FDA has fined all of the drug companies who make the CRABs at some point as they have published false and erroneous information and videos about how well their drugs help MS patients.

When it comes to making a buck, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to prevent some people from saying and doing whatever it takes, regardless of the consequences.

Harry

[David1949]

Th Recent studies have shown that treating MS early with DMTs slows down progression:

http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis ... -treatment

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22496198

Medical decisions shouldn't be based on erroneous information. Unfortunately, the media perpetuates quite a bit of it and this video is a good example.

Other studies show little or no effect on slowing disability;

Association Between Use of Interferon Beta and Progression of Disability in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
(Of the CRAB drugs, R, A and B are interferon beta drugs and were mentioned in the study)
The study’s Conclusion: Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, administration of interferon beta was not associated with a reduction in progression of disability. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1217239

The “C” drug is not interferon beta. But the makers of the drug received a warning letter from the FDA for “false and misleading messages”. The warning letter also stated that “C… is not approved by the FDA for slowing, preventing or reversing physical disability associated with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.”
http://copaxone.com/redirect/Copaxone.c ... Letter.pdf

A study reported by Fox News states:
Benefit of MS Drugs Comes at Steep Price, Study Finds

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/2 ... z2XEUuOBVD
Among the findings of that study:
The new study, published in the journal Neurology, estimates that people who use the medications for a decade would get a modest health benefit for the money.
They would gain an extra two months or less of good health over 10 years, the researchers say, compared with using only therapies that help ease MS symptoms — like medications for pain, fatigue and muscle spasms.
Two months or less- Whoopee!

Another study reported on by the Independent found that; the “drugs failed to delay the onset of disability in patients – defined as walking with a stick or using a wheelchair – and may even have hastened it.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 91104.html

[want2bike]

It is depended on who is doing the studies. All drugs are toxic and do not belong in the body. These drugs destroy your immune system. Not so good if you want to avoid cancer and other diseases. Now you have to worry about whether the drugs are contaminated with things like Meningitis. These drugs studies funded by the drug companies are a fantasy.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/healt ... .html?_r=3&

[bifrostlake]

As one study showed, 327 MS patients using Interferon studied over 21 years show a 46.8 % reduction in hazard of mortality over palcebo!! So instead of 10 MS patients dying in any one group, only 6 patients would have died if they took Interferon. And what the heck does this mean when it comes to living with MS?!!

Association Between Use of Interferon Beta and Progression of Disability in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
(Of the CRAB drugs, R, A and B are interferon beta drugs and were mentioned in the study)
The study’s Conclusion: Among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, administration of interferon beta was not associated with a reduction in progression of disability. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1217239

The first link is about mortality in treated vs. untreated MSers and the second link is about the benefits of early treatment. I'm sure that there are studies that focus on quality of life, but that's not what the links are about.

The comparison was done with patients who used a placebo (of unknown nature). Why wasn't a comparison done with patients who used nothing or perhaps alternative medicine? The very nature of MS being remitting and relapsing kind of makes these studies irrelevant unless of course you are the one selling Interferon to MS patients.

A placebo is an inert substance that has no effect whatsoever on the medical condition being studied, in other words, the patients were using nothing. As far as the nature of the placebo used, the researchers may have used saline. The results for an alternative medicine would have been about the same as using a placebo. If an alternative medication is shown to be effective in randomized, double-blind trials, then it's no longer alternative, just regular, conventional medication.

The very nature of MS being remitting and relapsing kind of makes these studies irrelevant unless of course you are the one selling Interferon to MS patients.

That depends on a study's time-frame. Results at six months is meaningless (regardless if the intervention used is a drug or surgery) but results at 21 years is not.

I guess this is why the FDA has fined all of the drug companies who make the CRABs at some point as they have published false and erroneous information and videos about how well their drugs help MS patients.

The “C” drug is not interferon beta. But the makers of the drug received a warning letter from the FDA for “false and misleading messages”. The warning letter also stated that “C… is not approved by the FDA for slowing, preventing or reversing physical disability associated with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.”
http://copaxone.com/redirect/Copaxone.c ... Letter.pdf

The FDA doesn't only fine drug companies. They also fine medical device companies and supplement companies, both of which fall under its purview. And just to be clear, being fined does not mean that the treatment is flawed. Drug and medical device companies just cannot make a claim about a treatment that wasn't shown in research studies. Supplements are, for some reason, treated differently.

When it comes to making a buck, there doesn't appear to be any barriers to prevent some people from saying and doing whatever it takes, regardless of the consequences.

That's why the FDA exists. If I had a complaint about them, it would be that they are far too lenient on the supplement industry (which according to Forbes, makes a billion dollars each year) despite the fact that serious adverse events have been associated with some supplements. And legally, they can make any unproven claim that they want just as long as they have a warning label stating that any claims made have not be evaluated by the FDA somewhere on the bottle. Yes, the FDA is not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing.

A study reported by Fox News states:
Benefit of MS Drugs Comes at Steep Price, Study Finds

Actually, Katia Noyes' research supports the WebMDs article on early treatment. Her comment:

In the case of DMDs for MS, she said, starting earlier in the course of the disease appears to be better.

Professor George Ebers was an outspoken critic of the NHS' treatment scheme mentioned in the news article from the Independent. He's also one of the authors of the mortality study linked in my original post.

[HarryZ]

A placebo is an inert substance that has no effect whatsoever on the medical condition being studied, in other words, the patients were using nothing. As far as the nature of the placebo used, the researchers may have used saline. The results for an alternative medicine would have been about the same as using a placebo. If an alternative medication is shown to be effective in randomized, double-blind trials, then it's no longer alternative, just regular, conventional medication.

Researchers don't have to disclose what's in the placebo so we really don't know if it is having an effect on the patient. It's supposed to be inert but the very fact a patient is taking part in a trial and is using a placebo can effect them in some way.

That depends on a study's time-frame. Results at six months is meaningless (regardless if the intervention used is a drug or surgery) but results at 21 years is not.

You think that 21 years guarntees the results published mean something! One only needs to look at other studies, especially the one done at UBC on several more patients. It found just the opposite in stating Interferon did little if anything with long term use. The NIH in the UK also found the CRAB drugs were a waste of money in evaluating their long term use. So it looks like the trial results depend on who is running them...drug companies say they are great...independent researchers say they are a waste of time.

The FDA doesn't only fine drug companies. They also fine medical device companies and supplement companies, both of which fall under its purview. And just to be clear, being fined does not mean that the treatment is flawed. Drug and medical device companies just cannot make a claim about a treatment that wasn't shown in research studies. Supplements are, for some reason, treated differently.

My point was to show that the very drug companies who make these drugs are known to make false statements in trying to promote their product. You had suggested that the patient needed to make an informed decision to which I agreed. But it's pretty hard to make an informed decision when the company making the drug is purposely giving you false information!

That's why the FDA exists. If I had a complaint about them, it would be that they are far too lenient on the supplement industry (which according to Forbes, makes a billion dollars each year) despite the fact that serious adverse events have been associated with some supplements. And legally, they can make any unproven claim that they want just as long as they have a warning label stating that any claims made have not be evaluated by the FDA somewhere on the bottle. Yes, the FDA is not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing.

Yes, the FDA is NOT perfect and has been known to make some bad decisions. They are a huge government agency and you can imagine the amount of error to which they are prone.

Professor George Ebers was an outspoken critic of the NHS' treatment scheme mentioned in the news article from the Independent. He's also one of the authors of the mortality study linked in my original post.

Of course Dr. Ebers is an outspoken critic of the NHS. They are severely questioning the work which he has been involved with for many years. George has been part of the established world of MS medicine and began his MS work at London Ontario's University Hospital MS Clinic. Nice guy who has been behind the CRABs for years but that doesn't mean his views are correct.

Harry

[jimmylegs]

i'm just going to chime in re the placebo aspect - I remember one pharma study where quercetin of all things was used as placebo. far from inert (IF you can believe what the research has to say about the nutriceutical actions of quercetin, that is)