A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
I would really like these
Posted: Aug 26, 2014
to stop with just changing the name of a medication that has been on the market for decades, used for something else entirely, and then advertising it as a "new" medication for a different condition all together. Leave it to a male to determine that all a woman needs for menopausal symptoms is an antidepressant!! They have no idea what all is involved functionally with that period in a woman's life, and to just uniformly prescribe an antidepressant, no matter what name it is now being marketed under, leading the woman to think that there is truly a NEW medication for her symptoms. It is highly misleading and potentially dangerous to someone who may, for instance, not tolerate antidepressants well! I also feel it is "criminal." They will be marketing a decades old medication and charging a much higher price for the thing!!! sorry to vent. just had to get that off my chest after seeing commercials marketing an antidepressant as a non-hormonal menopausal medication under a new name!!! aarrgghh!!! ;
Curious, which med are you talking about? SM - Old Anon
[ In Reply To ..]Just for my information.
it is being - advertised as
[ In Reply To ..]A "new" non-hormonal menopausal medication, calling it Briselle, but if you look it up, it is paroxetine, or Paxil! Very misleading!
I saw that too. Since it is a "new" med, they - L&L
[ In Reply To ..]can charge outrageously for it, rather than letting you get something on the $4 Rx list.
I have recently read a couple of books on how purely evil pharmaceutical companies really are. A lot of things are under-tested and cause the very things they are being prescribed to fix. Especially for women. Especially those osteoporosis medications which cause bone fractures.
Let's not ignore the role played by the - FDA in
[ In Reply To ..]fast tracking many of the drugs through the approval process, all for the almighty dollar. Of even more concern should be this new generation of anticoagulant drugs that require no monitoring. There is literature that indicates that the rate of absorption is higher in men than women, and even more so in women over 60-65. Adding to that is the fact that there is no monitoring and there are no reversal agents in use to reverse the anticoagulant in cases of bleeding, making those taking these drugs particularly vulnerable to intracranial bleeds, which have been known to be catastrophic. As much as I would not want to take warfarin/Coumadin, it has been around a long time and can be quickly reversed with fresh frozen plasma and vitamin K.
As an aside, anyone notice that after all the patents expired on the statin drugs that information has been available for the last 3 or so years indicating that they may only help those who already have heart disease, if you don't have heart disease by age 70 they can't help you, and they will not prevent heart disease? But they do cause harm to the liver and are likely to contribute to declined cognitive function over 60 as well as decreased muscle strength. I guess we're on a need to know with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies -- we don't need to know until the patents expire and there is no more money to be made. Isn't that when they usually release it to over the counter?
OOPS! - meant to say
[ In Reply To ..]the rate of absorption of the new anticoagulants is higher in women than men. Sorry.
Probably one of the reasons...SM - Old Anon
[ In Reply To ..]I didn't have any hot flashes and minimal mood swings while going through menopause. I was on a small dose of another SSRI at the time. According to one website I read, the Paxil element of the drug is lower than one would take with straight Paxil taken for depression. I see nothing wrong with this drug if used correctly for the purpose of easing menopause symptoms, as long as full disclosure is given.
Wow - I had no idea
[ In Reply To ..]All I can think when I see those ads is, really, now they have to have terrible female ads to compete with the Viagra ones?
Every time I watch TV an inordinate amount of time seems to be spent watching those terrible Viagra ads, always with the stupid bathtubs at the end. Gag me.
I really thought when I saw the ad that it was some sort of mild hormone or something to counteract the effects of menopause (obviously I did not listen to where they say "the first non-hormone"). I had no idea it was plain old Paxil, and doubt many do.
They need to have a truth in broadcasting law, I think we used to have one, wonder what happened to it?
Between ads for a drug that are allowed not to state what it actually is, right down to "news" that only tells the truth 20% of the time, there should be much more scrupulous regulation and enforcement of truth in broadcasting.
Not about hormones, but related to advertising drugs - - llw
[ In Reply To ..]It absolutely galls me that they can wrap up a very inexpensive, common antihistamine in a bright, new packaging and sell it at a huge overhead. I'm talking about "Z-Quil" which is simply diphenhydramine. People don't look at the labels, just accept that it's some new wonder drug and pay $14 for seven pills, when they could buy a bottle of 100 caps of diphenhydramine for $4.00. Shouldn't there be some sort of Truth in Advertising law?
Why should they be advertising drugs anyway. - L&L
[ In Reply To ..]Your average television audience is not made up of physicians or even people who are aware of what most of the medications they take are and do, and they cannot prescribe them, only hound their doctor to give them something they probably don't even need.
The pharmaceutical companies are purely truly evil. And they can pay off ANYBODY with their billions upon billions.