Got a blog tip? Contact us
« An Open Plea to the New York Post | Main | I have postulated the existence of a dazzling new concept »
Mother Jones on drugs
The current issue of Mother Jones has a couple of good articles. Those who remain unconvinced of the dangers of mental health screening should read Medicating Aliah, which uses the story of a 13-year-old Texas girl as a hook for a larger story about psychiatric screening. Aliah Gleason was basically a pain in the ass at school, which led school officials to diagnose her with "oppositional disorder" and hand her over to psychiatrists. The psychiatrists, following state guidelilnes, tested her, deemed her suicidal, took her from her parents, dosed her with psychiatric meds, and committed her to an institution. If the New York screening program is anything like the ones in Texas and Pennsylvania, let's just say we're in trouble.
The other story focuses on David Graham, the Food and Drug Administration researcher who exposed a number of unsafe drugs, including Vioxx. Vioxx is estimated is to have killed tens of thousands of Americans; it is, as reporter Michael Scherer suggests, a pharmaceutical Vietnam. Graham is portrayed as a genuinely tragic hero in a regulatory charade wherein the FDA is funded by the very drugs it purports to evaluate. According to the story, nearly half of the FDA's $400 million drug evaluation budget is paid for by industry.
Reading this reminded me an old idea I had for a board game. I thought it'd be funny to make a game where players buy and sell various diseases and side effects, with the goal of eliminating all of their health problems. I haven't the foggiest idea how to make a proper game, but if any of you entrepreneurs out there think you could make this idea work, do let me know.
Posted by Carrie McLaren on 04/28/2005 | Permalink
Comments
Meanwhile, those of us with no cardiovascular problems who were made mobile and functional again by Vioxx are screwed.
Posted by: A | Apr 28, 2005 1:41:08 PM
You raise a legitimate point, but the argument isn't whether or not Vioxx should be banned. Rather, it's that scientists like Graham who take research seriously and who don't simply mouth the words of their corporate sponsors are attacked and ultimately fired or demoted.
If the solution to problem drugs is banning them, it's only because the FDA is such a limp vehicle that banning them is the only way to assure that companies won't aggressively market them in ways that hurt people.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 28, 2005 2:30:48 PM
"Tens of thousands," A. I'm sorry that you need to find a replacement medication (Vioxx didn't do anything for me when I took it), but getting Vioxx off the market was a necessity.
Posted by: Charles Star | Apr 28, 2005 5:00:57 PM
The "tens of thousands" is an estimate (without a source). And of course, other drugs that are inappropriate or deadly for segments of the population are still on the market--they just aren't (usually) prescribed for those people. The solution isn't banning them and screwing people over, like the anti-Paxil lobby (for example) suggests, but cracking down on aggressive, inappropriate marketing by drug companies, funded by absurd price inflation. It's not a "necessity" to take the drug off the market, it's just a lazy attempt to make up for earlier laziness.
Posted by: A | Apr 29, 2005 5:04:58 PM
