Cipro SEs, Scientific American article, etc, etc

At first I posted this in the thread on the Scientific American article, as I felt it related to that and several other threads such as others having to do with trust and/or bias, and more than one current thread regarding the SEs of certain anitibiotics(AB). But on further thought, since it relates to maybe 1/2 dozen threads ( including one of mine titled "why did the doctors not know?" ), I thought maybe I should post it as it's own thread. It is more food for thought on all these related things we have been discussing. It relates to:

1: SEs of a certain class of drugs that many of us have taken more than once, aka Cipro. And it does make me wonder: how many of our doctors warned us about these possible SEs such as a ruptured Achilles' tendon( and apparently even deaths?....)? Certainly mine did not. Same goes for a couple of friends who started getting very sore in that area and were not told until they decided to call their docs who immediately took them off of the drugs. ( I was on the lookout for symptoms, but that is because I had researched it on my own ). But maybe that is irrelevant, because if you need the AB you need it regardless of the possible SEs? Still, I think most of us would want to know up front. I would anyway. Also relates to:

2: the FDA. Notice that, along with Johnson and Johnson, the flipping DIRECTOR of the FDA is being sued for some sort of alleged shenanigans designed to hide these SEs from the public, supposedly because of huge financial gain for herself by way of her husband, a fund manager heavily invested in these drugs, whose income increased from $10 million to 110 million during the year under question, 90 million the year after. Of course, keep in mind that she and hubby are simply being sued, they are not necessarily guilty. But whatever the outcome, this relates to concerns we have been discussing. The effect of billions of dollars not only on the quality of information we get from the drug companies, but on the FDA who is supposed to protect us from them.

If she and hubby end up losing this law suit, this also raises another question. Considering the megabucks involved, do you suppose it is possible the FDA would have been inclined to shut down any so called quack web sites who may have been warning about these SEs?

Here is the my post from the other thread:

"This might be somewhat useful info for what has been discussed in this thread and several other recent threads, including those dealing with SEs of Cipro:
www.abc2news.com/news/in-focus/johnson-johnson-former-fda-commissioner-among-defendants-in-levaquin-lawsuit

Somebody said...
A Baltimore woman is one of six plaintiffs in a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. They say the company and others hid information about debilitating side effects of the antibiotic Levaquin, and that they did it for their own financial gain.

The lawsuit is unusual because the plaintiffs are alleging that the company engaged in racketeering and violated the Federal RICO act---a law normally used to prosecute organized crime...................

...The suit also names Dr. Margaret Hamburg, former FDA commissioner, and her husband as defendants.

ahrp.org/former-fda-commissioner-charged-in-federal-racketeering-lawsuit/

Somebody said...

Former FDA Commissioner Charged in RICO Lawsuit

A Federal Lawsuit charges Dr. Margaret Hamburg, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with conspiracy, racketeering & colluding to conceal deadly drug dangers – under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO) law. The amended RICO lawsuit was filed on April 11, 2016 in the U.S. District Court in Washington DC on behalf of eight plaintiffs who claim they have suffered severe harm by ingesting the drug, Levaquin whose deadly risks were concealed to protect financial interests.

The drug is one of the controversial group of antibiotics, including Levaquin, Cipro, Avelox and other fluoroquinolones. Public Citizen petitioned the FDA in 1996 and again in 2006, to issue Black Box warnings for tendon rupture and tendinitis. Had warnings been issued, the death toll from Levaquin– reputedly more than 5,000 — and the tens of thousands who were debilitated with life-threatening diseases would likely have been averted. (Read risks at RxList)

The suit, filed by Larry Klayman, a former federal prosecutor, charges Dr. Hamburg, her husband, Peter Brown, an executive in the hedge-fund Renaissance Technologies, with collusion, conspiracy and racketeering alongside the pharmaceutical giant, Johnson & Johnson to conceal those deadly risks — to protect their financial stake.

“While Defendant Hamburg was FDA Commissioner, her husband, Defendant Brown’s annual income, not coincidentally, increased from a reported $10 million in 2008 to an estimated $125 million in 2011 and an estimated $90 million in 2012, due in whole or in part to Defendants’ racketeering conspiracy to withhold information about the devastating, life threatening, and deadly effects of Levaquin.”

This lawsuit is unusual; it shines a light on blatant political corruption — the purchase of powerful executive posts...............

......"

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 10/5/2016 10:00:27 AM (GMT-6)

halbert said...
BB, I think the import of all of this is clear. It's a fair question to ask, "who is watching the watchdogs?" Clearly, the drug companies want to make sure that only 'their' story is told--the one that increases profits for them. In that, they are no different from anyone else. The problem is, to me, a lot deeper than we want to admit: Pogo was right a long time ago, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

I would say a lot more along those lines, but it would veer rapidly into political commentary and get it locked. Suffice it to say that, IMO, not all government regulation is bad.

For the rest, I argue that most of us are not any good at honest risk assessment. We don't have any real grasp of what 'acceptable risk' means. I'm allergic to penicillin and most of it's relatives. Given the choice of no antibiotic and that class, I'll take my chances. I don't know that I've ever had a serious explanation of side effects by any doctor about a drug that I was being offered. And the question is, 'what is acceptable risk?' If 5% of all patients on a course of levaquin have achilles tendon problems, is that acceptable? 1%? What is the number?

And, I submit, that if you're in the hospital with pneumonia, and you're given a choice between having IV levaquin for 48 hours with a low level possibility of foot trouble, or not having the AB, which would you choose?

No good answers, BB.

Very good points. I would choose the AB, assuming there was no older and less risky AB available that would get the job done. And as drug resistance keeps escalating, the odds are ever increasing that there would be nothing to help me that did not also significantly escalate the possible SEs, even the risk of death. So most likely I would end up choosing the Levaquin in your scenario. I bet most of us would.

But what I would much prefer is that my doctors, and the drug companies, and most especially the Federal government who is in the role of declaring drugs safe and effective(or not), be involved in hiding facts from me. Or that the same government shut down other sources who use free speech to warn me of possible risks. I say again it is the same government agency sited in these links who do not hesitate to go after fruit sellers if they make health claims about fruits that can not be proven by FDA standards.

You might be right about no good answers. Also to say: "It's a fair question to ask, "who is watching the watchdogs?"".