LuvMyLilDoggie
02-21-2005, 08:40 AM
Did you all know that Adderal was taken off the Canadian market last Friday for causing at leasr 40 cases of sudden death in children? It's caused strokes and heart attacks too. My son ran out of his Adderal and he's not going back on it.
Barb
Barb
Sponsor
Redhead23
02-21-2005, 11:30 AM
It was 20 deaths, not 40, and "only" 2 out of those were strokes in children - please check your info before posting :)
I am not sure from the wording whether it is "just" Adderal XR or all forms of it that were withdrawn?
I do wonder whether the fact that 4 amphetamine salts are mixed in this (NOT just dex, as the article below states) has something to do with the higher incidence of strokes?
Britain's Shire Pharmaceuticals said on Thursday that Canada has requested the suspension of sales of its attention deficit hyperactivity disorder treatment, Adderall XR (dextroamphetamine), because of safety concerns.
In a statement the company said it was complying with the request but "strongly disagreed" with the decision of the Canadian regulator, Health Canada, which was based on its interpretation of adverse event data during a routine label update.
Health Canada said in a statement it had suspended the market authorization of the product "due to safety information concerning the association of sudden deaths, heart-related deaths, and strokes in children and adults taking usual recommended doses of Adderall and Adderall XR
"Health Canada's decision comes as a result of a thorough review of safety information provided by the manufacturer, which indicated there were 20 international reports of sudden death in patients taking either Adderall or Adderall XR.
"These deaths were not associated with overdose, misuse or abuse. Fourteen deaths occurred in children, and 6 deaths in adults. There were 12 reports of stroke, 2 of which occurred in children.
"A preliminary review of safety data for the other related stimulants authorised for use in the treatment of ADHD in Canada has been conducted. In that review, the incidence of serious adverse reactions leading to death was higher in Adderall and Adderall XR combined than in the other drugs of this class.
"Health Canada has asked manufacturers of other related stimulants approved for the treatment of ADHD to provide a thorough review of their worldwide safety data."
A Shire spokeswoman told APM that the 20 deaths were reported over a 10-year period during which time more than one million people had taken 37 million prescriptions of Adderall and Adderall XR.
I am not sure from the wording whether it is "just" Adderal XR or all forms of it that were withdrawn?
I do wonder whether the fact that 4 amphetamine salts are mixed in this (NOT just dex, as the article below states) has something to do with the higher incidence of strokes?
Britain's Shire Pharmaceuticals said on Thursday that Canada has requested the suspension of sales of its attention deficit hyperactivity disorder treatment, Adderall XR (dextroamphetamine), because of safety concerns.
In a statement the company said it was complying with the request but "strongly disagreed" with the decision of the Canadian regulator, Health Canada, which was based on its interpretation of adverse event data during a routine label update.
Health Canada said in a statement it had suspended the market authorization of the product "due to safety information concerning the association of sudden deaths, heart-related deaths, and strokes in children and adults taking usual recommended doses of Adderall and Adderall XR
"Health Canada's decision comes as a result of a thorough review of safety information provided by the manufacturer, which indicated there were 20 international reports of sudden death in patients taking either Adderall or Adderall XR.
"These deaths were not associated with overdose, misuse or abuse. Fourteen deaths occurred in children, and 6 deaths in adults. There were 12 reports of stroke, 2 of which occurred in children.
"A preliminary review of safety data for the other related stimulants authorised for use in the treatment of ADHD in Canada has been conducted. In that review, the incidence of serious adverse reactions leading to death was higher in Adderall and Adderall XR combined than in the other drugs of this class.
"Health Canada has asked manufacturers of other related stimulants approved for the treatment of ADHD to provide a thorough review of their worldwide safety data."
A Shire spokeswoman told APM that the 20 deaths were reported over a 10-year period during which time more than one million people had taken 37 million prescriptions of Adderall and Adderall XR.
LuvMyLilDoggie
02-22-2005, 12:08 AM
The information I read said 20 deaths in Canada and about 20 more elsewhere.
From the article I read on the 'net, I gathered that XR was the only one used in Canada and that's why it's the only form mentioned.
Anyhow, that really is not a lot of people based on the # of scripts but I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
My son went from Concerta to Adderal and said he liked Adderal better as far as helping with his attention but he seemed to get more headaches and complained of dizziness. I think he's finally found his niche because although it's still a struggle for him, he is doing much better is school.
Barb
From the article I read on the 'net, I gathered that XR was the only one used in Canada and that's why it's the only form mentioned.
Anyhow, that really is not a lot of people based on the # of scripts but I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
My son went from Concerta to Adderal and said he liked Adderal better as far as helping with his attention but he seemed to get more headaches and complained of dizziness. I think he's finally found his niche because although it's still a struggle for him, he is doing much better is school.
Barb
Redhead23
02-22-2005, 05:33 AM
The information I read said 20 deaths in Canada and about 20 more elsewhere.
Oh I see - all sources I have found state that none of them were in Canada, it was just a precaution.
From the article I read on the 'net, I gathered that XR was the only one used in Canada and that's why it's the only form mentioned.
LOL that might well explain ;)
Anyhow, that really is not a lot of people based on the # of scripts but I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
My son went from Concerta to Adderal and said he liked Adderal better as far as helping with his attention but he seemed to get more headaches and complained of dizziness. I think he's finally found his niche because although it's still a struggle for him, he is doing much better is school.
Barb
I do suspect that as I said above the reason why Adderal seems "worse" than Dex is because it uses 4 different amphetamine salts. Has your son tried Dexedrine? If Adderal works for him it is well possible that Dex (which makes up 1/4 of Adderal) would work as well.
Oh I see - all sources I have found state that none of them were in Canada, it was just a precaution.
From the article I read on the 'net, I gathered that XR was the only one used in Canada and that's why it's the only form mentioned.
LOL that might well explain ;)
Anyhow, that really is not a lot of people based on the # of scripts but I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
My son went from Concerta to Adderal and said he liked Adderal better as far as helping with his attention but he seemed to get more headaches and complained of dizziness. I think he's finally found his niche because although it's still a struggle for him, he is doing much better is school.
Barb
I do suspect that as I said above the reason why Adderal seems "worse" than Dex is because it uses 4 different amphetamine salts. Has your son tried Dexedrine? If Adderal works for him it is well possible that Dex (which makes up 1/4 of Adderal) would work as well.
malibubarbie999
02-22-2005, 05:35 PM
....deleted.....
Here is what the US FDA had to say:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health Advisory for Adderall and Adderall XR
Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory agency, has suspended the sale of Adderall XR in the Canadian market. Adderall XR is a controlled release amphetamine used to treat patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Canadian action was based on U.S. post-marketing reports of sudden deaths in pediatric patients.
Adderall XR is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 6 years of age and older with ADHD, and Adderall, the immediate-release formulation of the drug, is approved for pediatric patients with ADHD. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of these post-marketing cases, and evaluated the risk of sudden death with Adderall prior to approving the drug for treatment of ADHD in adults last year.
OF 12 TOTAL CASES, FIVE OCCURED IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING STRUCTURAL HEART DEFECTS (abnormal arteries or valves, abnormally thickened walls, etc.), ALL CONDITIONS THAT INCREASE THE RISK OF SUDDEN DEATH. SEVERAL OF THE REMAINING CASES PRESENTED PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING A FAMILY HISTORY OF VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA, ASSOCIATION OF DEATH WITH HEAT EXHAUSTION, DEHYDRATION and NEAR-DROWNING, VERY RIGOROUS EXERCISE, FATTY LIVER, HEART ATTACK, and TYPE 1 DIABETES MELITUS. One case was reported three to four years after the event and another had above-toxic blood levels of amphetamine. The duration of treatment varied from one day to 8 years. THE NUMBER OF CASES OF SUDDEN DEATHS FOR ADDERALL IS ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER, PER MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS, THAN THE NUMBER REPORTED FOR METHYLPHENIDATE PRODUCTS, which are also commonly used to treat pediatric patients with ADHD.
The FDA is continuing to evaluate these and other post-marketing reports of serious adverse events in children, adolescents, and adults being treated with Adderall and related products. WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE RATE OF SUDDEN DEATH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS TREATED WITH ADDERALL PRODUCTS BASED ON THE APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BETWEEN 1999 AND 2003 (the period of time in which these deaths occurred), IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS REPORTED IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF SUDDEN DEATHS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THIS POPULATION WITHOUT TREATMENT. For this reason, THE FDA HAS NOT DECIDED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER REGULATORY ACTION AT THIS TIME. However, because it appeared that patients with underlying heart defects might be at increased risk for sudden death, the labeling for Adderall XR was changed in August 2004 to include a warning that these patients might be at particular risk, and that these patients should ordinarily not be treated with Adderall products.
Here is what the US FDA had to say:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health Advisory for Adderall and Adderall XR
Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory agency, has suspended the sale of Adderall XR in the Canadian market. Adderall XR is a controlled release amphetamine used to treat patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Canadian action was based on U.S. post-marketing reports of sudden deaths in pediatric patients.
Adderall XR is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 6 years of age and older with ADHD, and Adderall, the immediate-release formulation of the drug, is approved for pediatric patients with ADHD. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of these post-marketing cases, and evaluated the risk of sudden death with Adderall prior to approving the drug for treatment of ADHD in adults last year.
OF 12 TOTAL CASES, FIVE OCCURED IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING STRUCTURAL HEART DEFECTS (abnormal arteries or valves, abnormally thickened walls, etc.), ALL CONDITIONS THAT INCREASE THE RISK OF SUDDEN DEATH. SEVERAL OF THE REMAINING CASES PRESENTED PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING A FAMILY HISTORY OF VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA, ASSOCIATION OF DEATH WITH HEAT EXHAUSTION, DEHYDRATION and NEAR-DROWNING, VERY RIGOROUS EXERCISE, FATTY LIVER, HEART ATTACK, and TYPE 1 DIABETES MELITUS. One case was reported three to four years after the event and another had above-toxic blood levels of amphetamine. The duration of treatment varied from one day to 8 years. THE NUMBER OF CASES OF SUDDEN DEATHS FOR ADDERALL IS ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER, PER MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS, THAN THE NUMBER REPORTED FOR METHYLPHENIDATE PRODUCTS, which are also commonly used to treat pediatric patients with ADHD.
The FDA is continuing to evaluate these and other post-marketing reports of serious adverse events in children, adolescents, and adults being treated with Adderall and related products. WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE RATE OF SUDDEN DEATH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS TREATED WITH ADDERALL PRODUCTS BASED ON THE APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BETWEEN 1999 AND 2003 (the period of time in which these deaths occurred), IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS REPORTED IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF SUDDEN DEATHS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THIS POPULATION WITHOUT TREATMENT. For this reason, THE FDA HAS NOT DECIDED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER REGULATORY ACTION AT THIS TIME. However, because it appeared that patients with underlying heart defects might be at increased risk for sudden death, the labeling for Adderall XR was changed in August 2004 to include a warning that these patients might be at particular risk, and that these patients should ordinarily not be treated with Adderall products.
Jennita
02-22-2005, 10:11 PM
...deleted...
Here is what the FDA had to say:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health Advisory for Adderall and Adderall XR
Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory agency, has suspended the sale of Adderall XR in the Canadian market. Adderall XR is a controlled release amphetamine used to treat patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Canadian action was based on U.S. post-marketing reports of sudden deaths in pediatric patients.
Adderall XR is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 6 years of age and older with ADHD, and Adderall, the immediate-release formulation of the drug, is approved for pediatric patients with ADHD. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of these post-marketing cases, and evaluated the risk of sudden death with Adderall prior to approving the drug for treatment of ADHD in adults last year.
OF 12 TOTAL CASES, FIVE OCCURED IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING STRUCTURAL HEART DEFECTS (abnormal arteries or valves, abnormally thickened walls, etc.), ALL CONDITIONS THAT INCREASE THE RISK OF SUDDEN DEATH. SEVERAL OF THE REMAINING CASES PRESENTED PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING A FAMILY HISTORY OF VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA, ASSOCIATION OF DEATH WITH HEAT EXHAUSTION, DEHYDRATION and NEAR-DROWNING, VERY RIGOROUS EXERCISE, FATTY LIVER, HEART ATTACK, and TYPE 1 DIABETES MELITUS. One case was reported three to four years after the event and another had above-toxic blood levels of amphetamine. The duration of treatment varied from one day to 8 years. THE NUMBER OF CASES OF SUDDEN DEATHS FOR ADDERALL IS ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER, PER MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS, THAN THE NUMBER REPORTED FOR METHYLPHENIDATE PRODUCTS, which are also commonly used to treat pediatric patients with ADHD.
The FDA is continuing to evaluate these and other post-marketing reports of serious adverse events in children, adolescents, and adults being treated with Adderall and related products. WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE RATE OF SUDDEN DEATH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS TREATED WITH ADDERALL PRODUCTS BASED ON THE APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BETWEEN 1999 AND 2003 (the period of time in which these deaths occurred), IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS REPORTED IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF SUDDEN DEATHS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THIS POPULATION WITHOUT TREATMENT. For this reason, THE FDA HAS NOT DECIDED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER REGULATORY ACTION AT THIS TIME. However, because it appeared that patients with underlying heart defects might be at increased risk for sudden death, the labeling for Adderall XR was changed in August 2004 to include a warning that these patients might be at particular risk, and that these patients should ordinarily not be treated with Adderall products. [/QUOTE]
IMHO, nothing that threatens life is to be considered blown out of proportion. In fact, although instant death may not come to every adult or child alike on Adderall, I would think the obvious adverse cardiovascular effects that can develop over time with amphetamines might make one think of whether or not it's worth it to have heart and vascular health problems in the future.
Some damages are not instant; they are cumulative. I think one must know what the possibilites are when it concerns their health and well being, then if they choose to take the drugs, hopefully all will be well in their case.
So, given the damages Adderall can cause, whether now or later, I think it should justifiably be under extreme scrutiny.
Yes, all drugs including tylenol and aspirin can be dangerous, however, it's the higher levels of danger of some drugs that concerns some people and some governments. Our government is alot more concerned with the captialistic gains than other countries who have socialized programs of medical care.
I think Canada did the right thing IMHO, and the poster was simply passing on infomation she thought may be important to some parents here....
Here is what the FDA had to say:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health Advisory for Adderall and Adderall XR
Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory agency, has suspended the sale of Adderall XR in the Canadian market. Adderall XR is a controlled release amphetamine used to treat patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Canadian action was based on U.S. post-marketing reports of sudden deaths in pediatric patients.
Adderall XR is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 6 years of age and older with ADHD, and Adderall, the immediate-release formulation of the drug, is approved for pediatric patients with ADHD. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been aware of these post-marketing cases, and evaluated the risk of sudden death with Adderall prior to approving the drug for treatment of ADHD in adults last year.
OF 12 TOTAL CASES, FIVE OCCURED IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING STRUCTURAL HEART DEFECTS (abnormal arteries or valves, abnormally thickened walls, etc.), ALL CONDITIONS THAT INCREASE THE RISK OF SUDDEN DEATH. SEVERAL OF THE REMAINING CASES PRESENTED PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING A FAMILY HISTORY OF VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA, ASSOCIATION OF DEATH WITH HEAT EXHAUSTION, DEHYDRATION and NEAR-DROWNING, VERY RIGOROUS EXERCISE, FATTY LIVER, HEART ATTACK, and TYPE 1 DIABETES MELITUS. One case was reported three to four years after the event and another had above-toxic blood levels of amphetamine. The duration of treatment varied from one day to 8 years. THE NUMBER OF CASES OF SUDDEN DEATHS FOR ADDERALL IS ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER, PER MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS, THAN THE NUMBER REPORTED FOR METHYLPHENIDATE PRODUCTS, which are also commonly used to treat pediatric patients with ADHD.
The FDA is continuing to evaluate these and other post-marketing reports of serious adverse events in children, adolescents, and adults being treated with Adderall and related products. WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE RATE OF SUDDEN DEATH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS TREATED WITH ADDERALL PRODUCTS BASED ON THE APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BETWEEN 1999 AND 2003 (the period of time in which these deaths occurred), IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS REPORTED IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF SUDDEN DEATHS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THIS POPULATION WITHOUT TREATMENT. For this reason, THE FDA HAS NOT DECIDED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER REGULATORY ACTION AT THIS TIME. However, because it appeared that patients with underlying heart defects might be at increased risk for sudden death, the labeling for Adderall XR was changed in August 2004 to include a warning that these patients might be at particular risk, and that these patients should ordinarily not be treated with Adderall products. [/QUOTE]
IMHO, nothing that threatens life is to be considered blown out of proportion. In fact, although instant death may not come to every adult or child alike on Adderall, I would think the obvious adverse cardiovascular effects that can develop over time with amphetamines might make one think of whether or not it's worth it to have heart and vascular health problems in the future.
Some damages are not instant; they are cumulative. I think one must know what the possibilites are when it concerns their health and well being, then if they choose to take the drugs, hopefully all will be well in their case.
So, given the damages Adderall can cause, whether now or later, I think it should justifiably be under extreme scrutiny.
Yes, all drugs including tylenol and aspirin can be dangerous, however, it's the higher levels of danger of some drugs that concerns some people and some governments. Our government is alot more concerned with the captialistic gains than other countries who have socialized programs of medical care.
I think Canada did the right thing IMHO, and the poster was simply passing on infomation she thought may be important to some parents here....
index.html
02-23-2005, 04:54 AM
WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE RATE OF SUDDEN DEATH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS TREATED WITH ADDERALL PRODUCTS BASED ON THE APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BETWEEN 1999 AND 2003, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE NUMBER OF DEATHS REPORTED IS GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF SUDDEN DEATHS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THIS POPULATION WITHOUT TREATMENT. !
That's interesting, isn't it?
That's interesting, isn't it?
Jennita
02-23-2005, 03:59 PM
That's interesting, isn't it?
THe FDA said this? What a joke. Type in fda and drug company money and wonder why Vioxx is back on the market or why ever other country bans dangerous drugs that we still sell. We are a highly capitalistic society and money doesn't talk it screams to our government bodies and politicians.
Look up Daniel E. Troy, chief counsel in the FDA appointed by Bush, was infamous for suing the FDA in defense of various co's to promote off label use,Troy held private meetings with drug manufacturers after heading the FDA. Troy stalled the FDA's investigation of ephedra, despite its link to at least 100 deaths. Troy also sided with the citrus juice industry on new rules to rid fruit juice of contaminants like E. coli.
When he was not yet appointed to the FDA, Attorney W. Daniel E. Troy defeated the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) effort to regulate tobacco advertising when he defended Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Troy won against the FDA again in 1998, so drug companies can provide doctors with information about "off-label" uses of prescription drugs.
He sided with lobbyists from Fashion Wear Services, a company making decorative contact lenses, allowing the lenses to be regulated as cosmetics instead of as medical devices. Safety advocates criticized Troy's decision because a 15-year-old girl lost sight in one eye from inserting a tinted lens with no professional instruction. Four months later, the FDA reconsidered and banned the import of the lenses citing public health concerns.
Now, under his rule, the FDA decreased enforcement actions against drug companies. Between January 1999 and December 2001, the FDA sent 90 enforcement letters a year to drug companies using misleading advertising.
That number dropped to 30 last year, following a change in FDA policy requiring all enforcement letters to win Troy's approval.
THe FDA said this? What a joke. Type in fda and drug company money and wonder why Vioxx is back on the market or why ever other country bans dangerous drugs that we still sell. We are a highly capitalistic society and money doesn't talk it screams to our government bodies and politicians.
Look up Daniel E. Troy, chief counsel in the FDA appointed by Bush, was infamous for suing the FDA in defense of various co's to promote off label use,Troy held private meetings with drug manufacturers after heading the FDA. Troy stalled the FDA's investigation of ephedra, despite its link to at least 100 deaths. Troy also sided with the citrus juice industry on new rules to rid fruit juice of contaminants like E. coli.
When he was not yet appointed to the FDA, Attorney W. Daniel E. Troy defeated the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) effort to regulate tobacco advertising when he defended Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Troy won against the FDA again in 1998, so drug companies can provide doctors with information about "off-label" uses of prescription drugs.
He sided with lobbyists from Fashion Wear Services, a company making decorative contact lenses, allowing the lenses to be regulated as cosmetics instead of as medical devices. Safety advocates criticized Troy's decision because a 15-year-old girl lost sight in one eye from inserting a tinted lens with no professional instruction. Four months later, the FDA reconsidered and banned the import of the lenses citing public health concerns.
Now, under his rule, the FDA decreased enforcement actions against drug companies. Between January 1999 and December 2001, the FDA sent 90 enforcement letters a year to drug companies using misleading advertising.
That number dropped to 30 last year, following a change in FDA policy requiring all enforcement letters to win Troy's approval.
Jennita
02-23-2005, 04:06 PM
Anyway, the whole point to the story is this....we have a right to know the dangers of drugs we give our children in order to make an informed choice.....whether or not the threat is severe, we have a right to know and any warnings should not be swept under by special interests of politicians..our health and children's are at stake.
This is only IMHO, because each parent makes the choice for their own kids.. It's pretty clear our government will keep the majority of these drugs on the market despite any problems so we should take it upon ourselves to read up on all, negative as well as positive, information that's out there and not let it be brushed off by anyone in power who may or may not have special interests dictating their studies and conclusions....
Presenting both sides fairly means taking the negative with the positive...I know we all want only the positive, that's human nature I suppose.
I want to make clear that I am not telling one person here NOT to do what they think is best for their child, and if that is to give them meds so be it..... but please, just be open to all the information out there, that's all.
Thankyou, Bosmom, for the information....... :wave:
This is only IMHO, because each parent makes the choice for their own kids.. It's pretty clear our government will keep the majority of these drugs on the market despite any problems so we should take it upon ourselves to read up on all, negative as well as positive, information that's out there and not let it be brushed off by anyone in power who may or may not have special interests dictating their studies and conclusions....
Presenting both sides fairly means taking the negative with the positive...I know we all want only the positive, that's human nature I suppose.
I want to make clear that I am not telling one person here NOT to do what they think is best for their child, and if that is to give them meds so be it..... but please, just be open to all the information out there, that's all.
Thankyou, Bosmom, for the information....... :wave:
LuvMyLilDoggie
02-23-2005, 05:37 PM
Well, I can see this has stirred a debate which I had not intended.
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
Jennita
02-24-2005, 02:23 PM
Well, I can see this has stirred a debate which I had not intended.
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
Great post Barb! I think good intentioned posts like yours gets misinterpreted as attack, causing defensiveness when all you are doing is presenting another side of the information out there and making people think....
I got my information from a Canadian news website which I consider at least as reliable as our major news sources in the US. I agree there are many different variations of stories on any given subject on the 'net and elsewhere. But my point was simply to report that Canada had found this information serious enough to pull Adderal and Adderal XR off the market until further notice. Apparently, Canada believes in being PROactive and the US believes in being REactive. And in the case of Vioxx, this FDA (the one with the "real" facts-LOL) is putting this dangerous drug back on the market because apparently, it hasn't KILLED enough people for the FDA to be satisfied with.
I don't care if it's 12, 20 or 40 that Adderal has adversely affected. I care that it was ONE. Someone somewhere has lost a CHILD to this drug. Would 12, 20 or 40 matter to you if that ONE child were YOURS?
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
Barb
Great post Barb! I think good intentioned posts like yours gets misinterpreted as attack, causing defensiveness when all you are doing is presenting another side of the information out there and making people think....
LuvMyLilDoggie
02-24-2005, 02:52 PM
Thanks Jennita! I appreciate your support. :)
Barb
Barb
Amy2838
02-26-2005, 07:18 PM
It just seems a little cruel to completely ban the drug, because it has helped SO many people, and they will now have to go through withdrawals and get acclimated to another drug which probably won't even work very well. From what I've read on this thread, the deaths only occurred in patients who already had heart problems. Banning the drug from EVERYBODY seems a little over-the-top and ultra-reactionary. I agree with the FDA when they decided to add a warning on the lable for patients with a history of cardiovascular problems to avoid taking this medicine. That way everyone else can still continue taking it. I mean people have died from taking Viagra, but they didn't ban that! (Well, they may have banned it in Canada...I don't know. Did they?)
Amy
Amy
index.html
02-28-2005, 01:57 PM
I believe in medicating a child with ADD as a last resort. These types of drugs can be lifesavers for children who have a difficult time learning. But I think before parents put their children on these drugs, they should educate themselves on the pros and cons as well as other forms of treatment.
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
index.html
02-28-2005, 04:10 PM
Okay, here's something I'd like to discuss. A couple of you have expressed disgust that Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) are back on the market in the US. Since those drugs have come under scrutiny, I've seen countless elderly patients in *a*g*o*n*y* because their arthritis is now essentially untreated. At our age, you have no conception of how agonizing and debilitating arthritis can be. Without that class of drug and Aleve (which is also now considered to be more dangerous), their choices are 1) Tylenol which is ineffective 2)Aspirin with its risks (do you have any idea how many people die each year from GI bleeds?) and 3) prescription narcotic pain relievers.
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
index.html
02-28-2005, 04:13 PM
Look up Daniel E. Troy, chief counsel in the FDA appointed by Bush, was infamous for suing the FDA in defense of various co's to promote off label use...
Troy won against the FDA again in 1998, so drug companies can provide doctors with information about "off-label" uses of prescription drugs...
Jennita, forgive me here, but I'm just not following your point about off-label uses of prescription drugs.
Troy won against the FDA again in 1998, so drug companies can provide doctors with information about "off-label" uses of prescription drugs...
Jennita, forgive me here, but I'm just not following your point about off-label uses of prescription drugs.
Jennita
03-01-2005, 03:19 PM
Jennita, forgive me here, but I'm just not following your point about off-label uses of prescription drugs.
Well, because off label can be dangerous/inappropriate/experimental. Neurontin makers have been prosecuted for such actions in the past; it was off-label, vigorously pushed for in conditions like anxiety and bi-polar although it's only real theraputic use is for neurological pain and seizures.
Many people became suicidal on it among other nasty side effects and it also caused bi-polar people to have severe problems because it was not effective like the standard treatments. The class action lawsuit is starting now after the guilty verdict.
Other drugs are promoted in simular ways if they find out that a drug has a side effect that might work on another condition the drug wasn't developed for. Another good example is the use of antipsychotics on non-psychotic people for anxiety; seems to me the potentially dangerous side effects(tardive dyskinesia among others) of those stronger drugs isn't even considered now.
I think sometimes things go ok but they are playing with fire.
Well, because off label can be dangerous/inappropriate/experimental. Neurontin makers have been prosecuted for such actions in the past; it was off-label, vigorously pushed for in conditions like anxiety and bi-polar although it's only real theraputic use is for neurological pain and seizures.
Many people became suicidal on it among other nasty side effects and it also caused bi-polar people to have severe problems because it was not effective like the standard treatments. The class action lawsuit is starting now after the guilty verdict.
Other drugs are promoted in simular ways if they find out that a drug has a side effect that might work on another condition the drug wasn't developed for. Another good example is the use of antipsychotics on non-psychotic people for anxiety; seems to me the potentially dangerous side effects(tardive dyskinesia among others) of those stronger drugs isn't even considered now.
I think sometimes things go ok but they are playing with fire.
Jennita
03-01-2005, 03:26 PM
Okay, here's something I'd like to discuss. A couple of you have expressed disgust that Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) are back on the market in the US. Since those drugs have come under scrutiny, I've seen countless elderly patients in *a*g*o*n*y* because their arthritis is now essentially untreated. At our age, you have no conception of how agonizing and debilitating arthritis can be. Without that class of drug and Aleve (which is also now considered to be more dangerous), their choices are 1) Tylenol which is ineffective 2)Aspirin with its risks (do you have any idea how many people die each year from GI bleeds?) and 3) prescription narcotic pain relievers.
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
I don't think we can say Cox-2's are less risky....although you are right about aspirin, some people take it for years without problem, especially now with the coated version plus most people will have food with it.
I heard comedian Bill Maher (of the old Politically Correct Show) say one time something about that T.V. advertising. He said they tell you to ask your doctor....but isn't your doctor supposed to be telling you? Doesn't he know if you need it? If you are asking your doctor for this pill and he gives it to you, isn't he then just your pusher? :D
Jeanene Garafolo the comedianne was also listing the side effects of Paxil they mentioned on the commercials for the treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder...dizziness, sweating, anxiety, tremor insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, sexual side effects, gas and vomiting ...she said yeah, exactly the kind of things she wants to have in social situations... :eek:
So, is it possible - just possible, that's all - that the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, et al) even with their risks are less risky than putting elderly patients on narcotics to control their pain? Is it possible, just possible, that there were other factors involved in the decision to allow these drugs to be prescribed with restrictions than money alone?
Now, you want to know what disgusts ME??? That pharmaceutical companies are allow to advertise directly to consumers. I still don't understand THAT decision.
I don't think we can say Cox-2's are less risky....although you are right about aspirin, some people take it for years without problem, especially now with the coated version plus most people will have food with it.
I heard comedian Bill Maher (of the old Politically Correct Show) say one time something about that T.V. advertising. He said they tell you to ask your doctor....but isn't your doctor supposed to be telling you? Doesn't he know if you need it? If you are asking your doctor for this pill and he gives it to you, isn't he then just your pusher? :D
Jeanene Garafolo the comedianne was also listing the side effects of Paxil they mentioned on the commercials for the treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder...dizziness, sweating, anxiety, tremor insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, sexual side effects, gas and vomiting ...she said yeah, exactly the kind of things she wants to have in social situations... :eek:
Zenfish
03-02-2005, 11:07 AM
I've been on Adderall, I've been off. On and off. It's terrific if you want to focus, be productive, be a leader, and everyone loves you. It's a pain if you want a deep, restful sleep. An alternative is to eat healthy, get a LOT of sleep and exercise, and know your condition. But it's tough to beat the instantaeous improvement of Adderall. I feel like the rat in "Flowers for Algernon," a famous story of a person who is dumb, then becomes very smart through drugs, then observes himself becoming dumb again because the drug wears off. Keep on, folks, it's ok....
ftlmatt
03-02-2005, 01:44 PM
thousands more people die from asprin overdose each year yet you never hear of people complaining about that!!
the fact is that stimulants are about the most studied and safest medication on the market.
it's only because of the abuse of these medications that bring so much attention to them...our society needs to wake up and realize that Mcdonalds and other fattening foods are killing more people (2nd in the nation behind smoking)
the fact is that stimulants are about the most studied and safest medication on the market.
it's only because of the abuse of these medications that bring so much attention to them...our society needs to wake up and realize that Mcdonalds and other fattening foods are killing more people (2nd in the nation behind smoking)
Jennita
03-02-2005, 02:52 PM
thousands more people die from asprin overdose each year yet you never hear of people complaining about that!!
the fact is that stimulants are about the most studied and safest medication on the market.
it's only because of the abuse of these medications that bring so much attention to them...our society needs to wake up and realize that Mcdonalds and other fattening foods are killing more people (2nd in the nation behind smoking)
Aspirin and tylenol are amoung the safest medications. I would think if amphetamines were as safe, you could get them OTC too. Anything can kill us in massive doses, even things we need, even water. But amphetamines are dangerous psychostimulants and can have certain strong negative effects on our health which will eventually catch up with us.
I don't know, you know, I see arguements in favor of amphetamines very simular in smokers I've known who say things like "well, something's gonna kill you", and "hey, not all smokers end up with lung cancer".
But I saw my uncle struggle many years with lung problems and heart problems because of cigarettes. And here's the kicker...he didn't die from cigarettes directly, no lung cancer. But all the lung and heart complications lead to him needing a large dose of Predinsone everyday(controls inflamation in lungs); that medication is known for weaking the immune system. Guess what he died from at only 62 years old....an infection.
So, one could say look, aha, cigarettes did not kill him, but without smoking chances are he wouldn't have needed so much Predinsone for so long and when that infection came, he could have recovered.....
So if one eventually dies from heart problems, stroke from high blood pressure or anything else due to weakened systems indirectly caused by amphetamines, we could in fact say amphetamines did not directly kill anyone. But that's a bit of an illusion.
I guess it all boils down to what a person is willing to risk or accept in their overall mental and physical health. Medication is in fact, personal choice but the choice shouldn't be made with only half the information out there.
Only sad part is, adults are allowed to decide these things in regards to taking or not taking amphetamine medication, whereas children really have no choice. Hopefully most parents do have both sides of information out there.
the fact is that stimulants are about the most studied and safest medication on the market.
it's only because of the abuse of these medications that bring so much attention to them...our society needs to wake up and realize that Mcdonalds and other fattening foods are killing more people (2nd in the nation behind smoking)
Aspirin and tylenol are amoung the safest medications. I would think if amphetamines were as safe, you could get them OTC too. Anything can kill us in massive doses, even things we need, even water. But amphetamines are dangerous psychostimulants and can have certain strong negative effects on our health which will eventually catch up with us.
I don't know, you know, I see arguements in favor of amphetamines very simular in smokers I've known who say things like "well, something's gonna kill you", and "hey, not all smokers end up with lung cancer".
But I saw my uncle struggle many years with lung problems and heart problems because of cigarettes. And here's the kicker...he didn't die from cigarettes directly, no lung cancer. But all the lung and heart complications lead to him needing a large dose of Predinsone everyday(controls inflamation in lungs); that medication is known for weaking the immune system. Guess what he died from at only 62 years old....an infection.
So, one could say look, aha, cigarettes did not kill him, but without smoking chances are he wouldn't have needed so much Predinsone for so long and when that infection came, he could have recovered.....
So if one eventually dies from heart problems, stroke from high blood pressure or anything else due to weakened systems indirectly caused by amphetamines, we could in fact say amphetamines did not directly kill anyone. But that's a bit of an illusion.
I guess it all boils down to what a person is willing to risk or accept in their overall mental and physical health. Medication is in fact, personal choice but the choice shouldn't be made with only half the information out there.
Only sad part is, adults are allowed to decide these things in regards to taking or not taking amphetamine medication, whereas children really have no choice. Hopefully most parents do have both sides of information out there.
ftlmatt
03-02-2005, 06:41 PM
Aspirin and tylenol are amoung the safest medications. I would think if amphetamines were as safe, you could get them OTC too. Anything can kill us in massive doses, even things we need, even water. But amphetamines are dangerous psychostimulants and can have certain strong negative effects on our health which will eventually catch up with us.
I don't know, you know, I see arguements in favor of amphetamines very simular in smokers I've known who say things like "well, something's gonna kill you", and "hey, not all smokers end up with lung cancer".
But I saw my uncle struggle many years with lung problems and heart problems because of cigarettes. And here's the kicker...he didn't die from cigarettes directly, no lung cancer. But all the lung and heart complications lead to him needing a large dose of Predinsone everyday(controls inflamation in lungs); that medication is known for weaking the immune system. Guess what he died from at only 62 years old....an infection.
So, one could say look, aha, cigarettes did not kill him, but without smoking chances are he wouldn't have needed so much Predinsone for so long and when that infection came, he could have recovered.....
So if one eventually dies from heart problems, stroke from high blood pressure or anything else due to weakened systems indirectly caused by amphetamines, we could in fact say amphetamines did not directly kill anyone. But that's a bit of an illusion.
I guess it all boils down to what a person is willing to risk or accept in their overall mental and physical health. Medication is in fact, personal choice but the choice shouldn't be made with only half the information out there.
Only sad part is, adults are allowed to decide these things in regards to taking or not taking amphetamine medication, whereas children really have no choice. Hopefully most parents do have both sides of information out there.
just because they are over the counter does not mean they are necessarily safe! where do you get your info from? tylenol and asprin kill more people than prescription overdoses of painkillers like vicodin!!!
amphetamines are dangerous psychostimulants?? LOL LOL where do you get this stuff from? i don't think you are very educated on medication at all...yes there MIGHT be some side effects that will eventually catch up with us in the future..but to live with ADD without treatment, that is not living at all!! my quality of life has improved dramatically since starting dexedrine and i can now enjoy everyday and life in general..
and by the sound of it, you only know half the information out there...the negative kind.
dangerous psychostimulants LOL LOL you watch too much 20/20, dateline, etc. in fact...DR. Amen, the leading doctor in ADHD/ADD research, has said he never has seen a patient of his sent to the hospital b/c of the use of stimulants and that ritalin is one of the safest and most studied (you know professional studies) medications on the market today...
I don't know, you know, I see arguements in favor of amphetamines very simular in smokers I've known who say things like "well, something's gonna kill you", and "hey, not all smokers end up with lung cancer".
But I saw my uncle struggle many years with lung problems and heart problems because of cigarettes. And here's the kicker...he didn't die from cigarettes directly, no lung cancer. But all the lung and heart complications lead to him needing a large dose of Predinsone everyday(controls inflamation in lungs); that medication is known for weaking the immune system. Guess what he died from at only 62 years old....an infection.
So, one could say look, aha, cigarettes did not kill him, but without smoking chances are he wouldn't have needed so much Predinsone for so long and when that infection came, he could have recovered.....
So if one eventually dies from heart problems, stroke from high blood pressure or anything else due to weakened systems indirectly caused by amphetamines, we could in fact say amphetamines did not directly kill anyone. But that's a bit of an illusion.
I guess it all boils down to what a person is willing to risk or accept in their overall mental and physical health. Medication is in fact, personal choice but the choice shouldn't be made with only half the information out there.
Only sad part is, adults are allowed to decide these things in regards to taking or not taking amphetamine medication, whereas children really have no choice. Hopefully most parents do have both sides of information out there.
just because they are over the counter does not mean they are necessarily safe! where do you get your info from? tylenol and asprin kill more people than prescription overdoses of painkillers like vicodin!!!
amphetamines are dangerous psychostimulants?? LOL LOL where do you get this stuff from? i don't think you are very educated on medication at all...yes there MIGHT be some side effects that will eventually catch up with us in the future..but to live with ADD without treatment, that is not living at all!! my quality of life has improved dramatically since starting dexedrine and i can now enjoy everyday and life in general..
and by the sound of it, you only know half the information out there...the negative kind.
dangerous psychostimulants LOL LOL you watch too much 20/20, dateline, etc. in fact...DR. Amen, the leading doctor in ADHD/ADD research, has said he never has seen a patient of his sent to the hospital b/c of the use of stimulants and that ritalin is one of the safest and most studied (you know professional studies) medications on the market today...
jen1008
03-02-2005, 07:46 PM
Well, because off label can be dangerous/inappropriate/experimental. Neurontin makers have been prosecuted for such actions in the past; it was off-label, vigorously pushed for in conditions like anxiety and bi-polar although it's only real theraputic use is for neurological pain and seizures.
Many people became suicidal on it among other nasty side effects and it also caused bi-polar people to have severe problems because it was not effective like the standard treatments. The class action lawsuit is starting now after the guilty verdict.
Other drugs are promoted in simular ways if they find out that a drug has a side effect that might work on another condition the drug wasn't developed for. Another good example is the use of antipsychotics on non-psychotic people for anxiety; seems to me the potentially dangerous side effects(tardive dyskinesia among others) of those stronger drugs isn't even considered now.
I think sometimes things go ok but they are playing with fire.
I take adderall for an "off-label" use. My psych prescribed ot to me in addition with a great mood stabilizer for bi-polar disorder. After trying other anti-depressents it is the only thing that has worked for immediate relief of some serious depression, which would kill me a lot quicker than the adderall. According to him adderall is much safer than regular anti-depressants, and its effects (short term and long-term) have been studied far more extensively than most prescription drugs on the market today.
Many people became suicidal on it among other nasty side effects and it also caused bi-polar people to have severe problems because it was not effective like the standard treatments. The class action lawsuit is starting now after the guilty verdict.
Other drugs are promoted in simular ways if they find out that a drug has a side effect that might work on another condition the drug wasn't developed for. Another good example is the use of antipsychotics on non-psychotic people for anxiety; seems to me the potentially dangerous side effects(tardive dyskinesia among others) of those stronger drugs isn't even considered now.
I think sometimes things go ok but they are playing with fire.
I take adderall for an "off-label" use. My psych prescribed ot to me in addition with a great mood stabilizer for bi-polar disorder. After trying other anti-depressents it is the only thing that has worked for immediate relief of some serious depression, which would kill me a lot quicker than the adderall. According to him adderall is much safer than regular anti-depressants, and its effects (short term and long-term) have been studied far more extensively than most prescription drugs on the market today.
ftlmatt
03-02-2005, 09:57 PM
I take adderall for an "off-label" use. My psych prescribed ot to me in addition with a great mood stabilizer for bi-polar disorder. After trying other anti-depressents it is the only thing that has worked for immediate relief of some serious depression, which would kill me a lot quicker than the adderall. According to him adderall is much safer than regular anti-depressants, and its effects (short term and long-term) have been studied far more extensively than most prescription drugs on the market today.
it is so refreshing to see someone else on here who is educated about the medication(s) they are taking...and you are right about the depression killing you quicker than the medication. before being on both dexedrine and wellbutrin, i tried to commit suicide a few times..i had severe depression. now i do not have thoughts about suicide at all!
you have a very good psychiatrist..one who is educated about the medication he prescribes and passes along CORRECT information about those drugs
it is so refreshing to see someone else on here who is educated about the medication(s) they are taking...and you are right about the depression killing you quicker than the medication. before being on both dexedrine and wellbutrin, i tried to commit suicide a few times..i had severe depression. now i do not have thoughts about suicide at all!
you have a very good psychiatrist..one who is educated about the medication he prescribes and passes along CORRECT information about those drugs
uptown22
03-02-2005, 10:15 PM
amphetamines are very safe when not abused. they have been around since the 1930s. if there was no legitimate medical pourpose they would be CI like LSD and Ruphies...
Jennita
03-03-2005, 12:57 AM
If Amphetamines are safe, so are aspirin & tylenol, etc, right??? As long as those are not "abused", they are perfectly "safe", however, it seems people exclaim how dangerous those things are, killing everyone.... yet they are not CI like LSD and Roofies either... Vioxx , Xanax, Vicodin and such is considered safe too when not abused; however, those have been also demonstrating that theraputic levels are still dangerous, not just abuse levels.
If Adderall is really so safe, what's all the fuss over there in Canada then???
ftlmatt, I know more than you think, been studying psychoactive substances for a long time...but you do not have to listen to me at all, that's your choice as I mentioned before. Adderall is causing all sorts of cardiovascular problems, why you can even see them on this very board in some posts.
But good luck anyway, hopefully good health will remain with you.
If Adderall is really so safe, what's all the fuss over there in Canada then???
ftlmatt, I know more than you think, been studying psychoactive substances for a long time...but you do not have to listen to me at all, that's your choice as I mentioned before. Adderall is causing all sorts of cardiovascular problems, why you can even see them on this very board in some posts.
But good luck anyway, hopefully good health will remain with you.
Jennita
03-03-2005, 03:29 AM
I take adderall for an "off-label" use. My psych prescribed ot to me in addition with a great mood stabilizer for bi-polar disorder. After trying other anti-depressents it is the only thing that has worked for immediate relief of some serious depression, which would kill me a lot quicker than the adderall. According to him adderall is much safer than regular anti-depressants, and its effects (short term and long-term) have been studied far more extensively than most prescription drugs on the market today.
I'm glad to hear it's working for you but on a cautionary note, look out for any activation of mania. Both antidepressants and stimulants can cause a manic reaction; this is in various literature all over the internet.
I'm glad to hear it's working for you but on a cautionary note, look out for any activation of mania. Both antidepressants and stimulants can cause a manic reaction; this is in various literature all over the internet.
index.html
03-03-2005, 12:57 PM
Well, because off label can be dangerous/inappropriate/experimental...
Okay, that's where I thought you were going. To some extent, I share your concern. You often hear sales reps from the pharmaceutical companies saying to physicians "Many of my docs are now using drug W to treat XYZ and they are having good results". And some docs, a minority probably but some, go and prescribe it that way strictly based on what they hear the reps say. That's scary.
HOWEVER, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. A good example is aspirin. For many, many years daily low dose aspirin was prescribed "off label" to prevent additional heart attacks in MI patients. Now, that's "on label" but instructing paramedics to give an aspirin sublinqual to a patient experiencing an MI to reduce the damage from that MI is not. I tell you what. If they come after me, they better give me that dang aspirin (if I haven't already taken it myself).
The problem is the number of years and expense involved in acquiring FDA approval for an additional usage. When physicians notice astounding results with these off-label usages and the results are confirmed in small studies, it's unethical for that information NOT to be shared. It borders on malpractice to withold that treatment from patients while the lengthy double-blind studies are carried out and FDA approval is sought.
But, again, caution is essential.
Okay, that's where I thought you were going. To some extent, I share your concern. You often hear sales reps from the pharmaceutical companies saying to physicians "Many of my docs are now using drug W to treat XYZ and they are having good results". And some docs, a minority probably but some, go and prescribe it that way strictly based on what they hear the reps say. That's scary.
HOWEVER, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. A good example is aspirin. For many, many years daily low dose aspirin was prescribed "off label" to prevent additional heart attacks in MI patients. Now, that's "on label" but instructing paramedics to give an aspirin sublinqual to a patient experiencing an MI to reduce the damage from that MI is not. I tell you what. If they come after me, they better give me that dang aspirin (if I haven't already taken it myself).
The problem is the number of years and expense involved in acquiring FDA approval for an additional usage. When physicians notice astounding results with these off-label usages and the results are confirmed in small studies, it's unethical for that information NOT to be shared. It borders on malpractice to withold that treatment from patients while the lengthy double-blind studies are carried out and FDA approval is sought.
But, again, caution is essential.
Jennita
03-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Okay, that's where I thought you were going. To some extent, I share your concern. You often hear sales reps from the pharmaceutical companies saying to physicians "Many of my docs are now using drug W to treat XYZ and they are having good results". And some docs, a minority probably but some, go and prescribe it that way strictly based on what they hear the reps say. That's scary.
HOWEVER, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. A good example is aspirin. For many, many years daily low dose aspirin was prescribed "off label" to prevent additional heart attacks in MI patients. Now, that's "on label" but instructing paramedics to give an aspirin sublinqual to a patient experiencing an MI to reduce the damage from that MI is not. I tell you what. If they come after me, they better give me that dang aspirin (if I haven't already taken it myself).
The problem is the number of years and expense involved in acquiring FDA approval for an additional usage. When physicians notice astounding results with these off-label usages and the results are confirmed in small studies, it's unethical for that information NOT to be shared. It borders on malpractice to withold that treatment from patients while the lengthy double-blind studies are carried out and FDA approval is sought.
But, again, caution is essential.
I agree with you to some extent, I think it really depends if indeed they do get good/excellent results in off label use and if the drug's safety/or side effects profile is modest enough to not cause perhaps a larger problem in patients.
In the case of Neurontin, it caused some users to become suicidal not to mention alot of other nasty effects, and they knew it was non-effective for bi-polar yet pushed it for bi-polar patients which caused some of them to experience severe bi-polar reactions since the drug did nothing for their condition. Neurontin makers were found guilty in a court of law of using one of their reps who happened to have a degree in chemistry as a tool to persuade doctors to believe he was a doctor himself and very qualified to determine whether or not Neurontin was for those patients....they did mislead doctors....the rep later worried about his own participation consequence in this went to a lawyer for help who instructed him to blow the whistle.
I believe there is a class action lawsuit going on right now.
Anyway, of course, in the case of a drug with modest risks and great success in off-label uses, I would of course agree with you there.
But after things like the Neurontin scandel, how much can we or even our doctors trust drug co's and their "studies" that convince us to use a drug off label? THere is not always a whistleblower available in most cases.
Caution, yes, extreme caution we must use and with a suspicious eye....
HOWEVER, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. A good example is aspirin. For many, many years daily low dose aspirin was prescribed "off label" to prevent additional heart attacks in MI patients. Now, that's "on label" but instructing paramedics to give an aspirin sublinqual to a patient experiencing an MI to reduce the damage from that MI is not. I tell you what. If they come after me, they better give me that dang aspirin (if I haven't already taken it myself).
The problem is the number of years and expense involved in acquiring FDA approval for an additional usage. When physicians notice astounding results with these off-label usages and the results are confirmed in small studies, it's unethical for that information NOT to be shared. It borders on malpractice to withold that treatment from patients while the lengthy double-blind studies are carried out and FDA approval is sought.
But, again, caution is essential.
I agree with you to some extent, I think it really depends if indeed they do get good/excellent results in off label use and if the drug's safety/or side effects profile is modest enough to not cause perhaps a larger problem in patients.
In the case of Neurontin, it caused some users to become suicidal not to mention alot of other nasty effects, and they knew it was non-effective for bi-polar yet pushed it for bi-polar patients which caused some of them to experience severe bi-polar reactions since the drug did nothing for their condition. Neurontin makers were found guilty in a court of law of using one of their reps who happened to have a degree in chemistry as a tool to persuade doctors to believe he was a doctor himself and very qualified to determine whether or not Neurontin was for those patients....they did mislead doctors....the rep later worried about his own participation consequence in this went to a lawyer for help who instructed him to blow the whistle.
I believe there is a class action lawsuit going on right now.
Anyway, of course, in the case of a drug with modest risks and great success in off-label uses, I would of course agree with you there.
But after things like the Neurontin scandel, how much can we or even our doctors trust drug co's and their "studies" that convince us to use a drug off label? THere is not always a whistleblower available in most cases.
Caution, yes, extreme caution we must use and with a suspicious eye....
index.html
03-03-2005, 02:27 PM
I guess our personalities are different, Jennita. I don't look at the Neurontin scandal and come to the conclusion that we can't trust our doctors, pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, and scientific researchers in this country.
Am I alarmed by recent news? Sure, I am. I'm more skeptical than I've ever been in my life. Skeptical, yes. But paranoid? No.
Am I alarmed by recent news? Sure, I am. I'm more skeptical than I've ever been in my life. Skeptical, yes. But paranoid? No.
Jennita
03-03-2005, 02:59 PM
I guess our personalities are different, Jennita. I don't look at the Neurontin scandal and come to the conclusion that we can't trust our doctors, pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, and scientific researchers in this country.
Am I alarmed by recent news? Sure, I am. I'm more skeptical than I've ever been in my life. Skeptical, yes. But paranoid? No.
I'm not at all suggesting we become paranoid about this at all, I know alot of good work is being done in the medical profession.....but we can be suspicious and cautious..by all means yes! We have to be more active in researching, we can't allow ourselves to always follow along without any investigation or question anymore. Especially in regard to newer drugs and off label usages.
Even more into "alternative" or dietary, reasoning wouldn't hurt us either. For example, I took my daughter to several doctors when she had unexplained, regular bouts with stomach pain. After exams and blood tests, all they could conclude was IBS....the catch all diagnosis...or maybe acid reflux. Problem is, she really didn't have all the symptoms associated with those.
She did try the Zantac prescribed to her but it gave her the runs, she got frustrated and went on the internet. She found a recently new discovery of something called Fructose intolerance, very much like Lactose intolerance but it was a sensitivity not to milk sugars but fructose(fruit) based sugars.
Well, I'm not into self diagnosis entirely but since we already went to the doctors with no avail, I didn't protest when she thought she'd try the diet. Well, it really worked for her. So, there is more to some things that even our doctors know so we need to realize that although they are are good line of defense, they still don't have all the answers.
But by all means, I"m not saying they don't have any answers. Most times they do, they save lives and cure ailments. That same daughter needed eye muscle surgery at a very young age to save the site in her lazy eye....it did save her eyesight and straightened that wandering eye....so, I do have alot of respect for the medical profession as a whole...
Am I alarmed by recent news? Sure, I am. I'm more skeptical than I've ever been in my life. Skeptical, yes. But paranoid? No.
I'm not at all suggesting we become paranoid about this at all, I know alot of good work is being done in the medical profession.....but we can be suspicious and cautious..by all means yes! We have to be more active in researching, we can't allow ourselves to always follow along without any investigation or question anymore. Especially in regard to newer drugs and off label usages.
Even more into "alternative" or dietary, reasoning wouldn't hurt us either. For example, I took my daughter to several doctors when she had unexplained, regular bouts with stomach pain. After exams and blood tests, all they could conclude was IBS....the catch all diagnosis...or maybe acid reflux. Problem is, she really didn't have all the symptoms associated with those.
She did try the Zantac prescribed to her but it gave her the runs, she got frustrated and went on the internet. She found a recently new discovery of something called Fructose intolerance, very much like Lactose intolerance but it was a sensitivity not to milk sugars but fructose(fruit) based sugars.
Well, I'm not into self diagnosis entirely but since we already went to the doctors with no avail, I didn't protest when she thought she'd try the diet. Well, it really worked for her. So, there is more to some things that even our doctors know so we need to realize that although they are are good line of defense, they still don't have all the answers.
But by all means, I"m not saying they don't have any answers. Most times they do, they save lives and cure ailments. That same daughter needed eye muscle surgery at a very young age to save the site in her lazy eye....it did save her eyesight and straightened that wandering eye....so, I do have alot of respect for the medical profession as a whole...
index.html
03-03-2005, 03:16 PM
So, there is more to some things that even our doctors know so we need to realize that although they are are good line of defense, they still don't have all the answers....
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find to find a doctor who claims that he does have all the answers.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find to find a doctor who claims that he does have all the answers.
Jennita
03-03-2005, 03:37 PM
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find to find a doctor who claims that he does have all the answers.
Oh, actually I knew a few... ;)
Oh, actually I knew a few... ;)
jen1008
03-03-2005, 07:00 PM
I'm glad to hear it's working for you but on a cautionary note, look out for any activation of mania. Both antidepressants and stimulants can cause a manic reaction; this is in various literature all over the internet.
Thanks for the cautionary note, both me and my psych are active in the lookout for manic episodes as we both know it could happen. As I have bpII, it's less of an issue(for right now at least) I struggle more with depression and have had few hypomanic episodes. I see my psych twice a month and keep a log of my moods, we are prepared to discontinue use if it stops working. I hope it doesn't though, it's been working great. :)
Thanks for the cautionary note, both me and my psych are active in the lookout for manic episodes as we both know it could happen. As I have bpII, it's less of an issue(for right now at least) I struggle more with depression and have had few hypomanic episodes. I see my psych twice a month and keep a log of my moods, we are prepared to discontinue use if it stops working. I hope it doesn't though, it's been working great. :)
index.html
03-04-2005, 04:16 AM
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find to find a doctor who claims that he does have all the answers.
Okay, now that I've slept on it, I've got to amend that statement! In my experience, they almost all ACT like they know everything. We laugh about the "God" class they take in med school. But, sit them down and talk to them, and you find out they are people like the rest of us - afraid of making mistakes and painfully aware of the gaps in their knowledge.
Okay, now that I've slept on it, I've got to amend that statement! In my experience, they almost all ACT like they know everything. We laugh about the "God" class they take in med school. But, sit them down and talk to them, and you find out they are people like the rest of us - afraid of making mistakes and painfully aware of the gaps in their knowledge.
Jennita
03-04-2005, 02:09 PM
Thanks for the cautionary note, both me and my psych are active in the lookout for manic episodes as we both know it could happen. As I have bpII, it's less of an issue(for right now at least) I struggle more with depression and have had few hypomanic episodes. I see my psych twice a month and keep a log of my moods, we are prepared to discontinue use if it stops working. I hope it doesn't though, it's been working great. :)
Ok, glad everything is good so far. :wave:
Ok, glad everything is good so far. :wave:
Malbojia
03-06-2005, 02:02 PM
Just to let ya guys know I'm from Canada, all my familyis.
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
Jennita
03-06-2005, 02:08 PM
Just to let ya guys know I'm from Canada, all my familyis.
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
Glad your mom did what she did! :wave:
I'm very happy that my mom took my sister off vioxx after her complaining of a sudden heart rate increase where it felt like a mild heart attack. Each time she needed it for her asthma.
Right away my mother new something was wrong with the drug. After a month of having the same type of symptoms. My mother had enough of it told our GP and she changed it for my sis. Ever since then barely any attacks can do gym again at school.
this was a few months before we heard of this on the news that canada had taken those 3 types of drugs off the market.
Well thinking of it just starts making me think of the what if's!
Remember it's all about the money to them.
Theres always other new drugs and antibiotics coming into the market. So for people who had to stop taking them their is always hope.
Glad your mom did what she did! :wave: