Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Children’s OxyContin Trial Underway


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#1 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:05 PM

Purdue Pharma LP, maker of the popular painkiller OxyContin, is conducting a trial to test the effects of the drug in children with the hopes of receiving an extension to their patent by the Food and Drug Administration.

The study, which has been ongoing since November 2010, is looking at how the drug is broken down, absorbed and tolerated overall by children compared with adult. The company is also looking at whether the drug relieves pain in children the same way it does in adults, but stressed they will not be released a grape-flavored version anytime soon.

"These trials are not intended to promote the use of OxyContin in pediatric patients but will provide clinical information about the product's pharmacokinetics, safety and to a lesser extent efficacy, in pediatric patients to clinicians who may be, or may consider, using the product in children with moderate to severe chronic pain," James Heins, senior director of public affairs for Purdue, told CBS News.

More than 154 patients are involved in the study, with more being recruited. The study specifically looks at children between the ages of six and 16 with "moderate to severe pain," including those with cancer, sickle-cell anemia or severe burns.

The study will conclude in August 2013, and if it is completed according to FDA standards, Purdue would be given a six-month extension on their drug patent, which prevents generic versions from being made.

"The generous incentives were made available to stimulate performance of studies necessary to provide useful information on drug use in children," Sandy Walsh, spokeswoman for the FDA, told CBS News.

Walsh also said the effects of these powerful drugs on kids are of importance, because children are rarely included in the studies. Not only are kids smaller, they metabolize drugs differently, which means the mechanism of action for a child may be different than that of an adult.

"One of FDA's top priorities is giving pediatricians and parents the same level of tested and researched information on drugs used to treat children that is required for drugs used to treat adults," Walsh stated. "This effort ensures children are not denied therapies because we do not know how to properly dose or use them. All of FDA's initiatives around pediatrics have aimed to get products that are used in children studied in children."

While there is always the concern of addiction from painkillers, Dr. Daniel Frattarelli, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Drugs, told ABC News that understanding the effects on kids would lead to doctors making better decisions.

"Pain is a real thing, and it needs to be treated," he said. "I would be much more comfortable prescribing it [OxyContin] if I knew that well-done studies had been conducted and also that there was a way of minimizing addiction."

http://www.isciencet...al-underway.htm


Some may see this as a means to 'further research' and perhaps even 'help kids in pain', however; that of course is the spin since this drug is very dangerous for even adults. Essentially, they are running these clinical trials on children (a FDA incentive that allows patents to be extended) for the sole purpose of maintaining their exclusivity on the patent rights to produce the drug over other pharmaceutical companies. It generates almost $3 billion per year in sales.

Edited by DarthNinja_S19Blade, 10 July 2012 - 04:09 PM.

  • 2
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

Posted Image Posted Image


#2 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:13 PM

This drug is incredibly dangerous. My brother started smoking weed (gateway drug, regardless of what anyone says) and doing Oxy, partially because he's an idiot and couldn't say 'no' to his moron friends on several occasions. Then moved onto heroin and cocaine shortly after because those highs didn't satisfy him anymore, I guess.

But he's doing better now, sort of.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:21 PM

*
POPULAR

On the one hand, I don't have high regard for big pharmaceutical companies using humans as guinea pigs in order to get richer.

On the other hand, I work with children who are often in excruciating, unrelievable pain that isn't helped with the current meds available. Anyone with a modicum of medical knowledge of drugs and pediatric patients is aware that children's bodies often breakdown drugs differently than their adult counterparts do, that their bodies will use these drugs differently than adult bodies do. It's difficult, when you're holding a 3 year old who is screaming in unrelievable agony, not to want to have better drugs that will take care of their pain and give them some relief. So if highly supervised drug trials are taking place, I am torn between wanting a better pain killing drug for my little ones and not wanting big pharmaceutical companies getting richer at the expense of little people.

It is a conundrum.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 04:33 PM.

  • 5

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#4 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,833 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:44 PM

On the one hand, I don't have high regard for big pharmaceutical companies using humans as guinea pigs in order to get richer.

On the other hand, I work with children who are often in excruciating, unrelievable pain that isn't helped with the current meds available. Anyone with a modicum of medical knowledge of drugs and pediatric patients is aware that children's bodies often breakdown drugs differently than their adult counterparts do, that their bodies will use these drugs differently than adult bodies do. It's difficult, when you're holding a 3 year old who is screaming in unrelievable agony, not to want to have better drugs that will take care of their pain and give them some relief. So if highly supervised drug trials are taking place, I am torn between wanting a better pain killing drug for my little ones and not wanting big pharmaceutical companies getting richer at the expense of little people.

It is a conundrum.


using narcotic-analgesic in toddlers and young kids is plain wrong. They will start to develop tolerance and dependence to the drug and the next thing you know, they will be popping pills in high school and elementary school (its not like they aren't doing that stuff now).
  • 1

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image


#5 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:48 PM

*
POPULAR

using narcotic-analgesic in toddlers and young kids is plain wrong. They will start to develop tolerance and dependence to the drug and the next thing you know, they will be popping pills in high school and elementary school (its not like they aren't doing that stuff now).


Oh please, get a grip. :rolleyes:

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 6

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#6 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:34 PM

Some may see this as a means to 'further research' and perhaps even 'help kids in pain', however; that of course is the spin since this drug is very dangerous for even adults. Essentially, they are running these clinical trials on children (a FDA incentive that allows patents to be extended) for the sole purpose of maintaining their exclusivity on the patent rights to produce the drug over other pharmaceutical companies. It generates almost $3 billion per year in sales.


They are giving this crap to CHILDREN ? This stuff is highly dangerous and super addictive. I think its a huge error. In fact, I would consider it abuse to give it to kids unless they have some kind of drastic problem like terminal cancer .
  • 1
Posted Image

#7 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:46 PM

*
POPULAR

Well, apparently BB has a medical degree and thinks children are immune to the addictiveness of the drug. I'll simply disagree given that it's obvious this hooks full grown men quite easily.

In before a hasty and probably arrogant reply from you know who.
  • 5
Posted Image

#8 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:48 PM

Well, apparently BB has a medical degree and thinks children are immune to the addictiveness of the drug. I'll simply disagree given that it's obvious this hooks full grown men quite easily.

In before a hasty and probably arrogant reply from you know who.


As a matter of fact I do. Do you?

Is this &*@*ing arrogant enough for you?

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 05:52 PM.

  • 4

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#9 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:50 PM

*
POPULAR

They are giving this crap to CHILDREN ? This stuff is highly dangerous and super addictive. I think its a huge error. In fact, I would consider it abuse to give it to kids unless they have some kind of drastic problem like terminal cancer .


How do you think they treat childhood diseases such as cancer? They drip poison into the arms of children in an attempt to kill cancer cells. How did they originally test childhood cancer drugs after the lab rats? On children. There are hundreds of thousands of adults alive today because that happened. Adults who have gone on to live healthy and productive lives and make huge discoveries in the advancement of medical treatments. Do you honestly think that the drug trials going on now are giving children adult doses of oxycontin? As I stated earlier, it is a well-known fact in medical circles that children sometimes react differently to adult drugs, that their bodies break down and process certain drugs differently.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 05:54 PM.

  • 8

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#10 terrible.dee

terrible.dee

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,269 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:53 PM

This drug is incredibly dangerous. My brother started smoking weed (gateway drug, regardless of what anyone says) and doing Oxy, partially because he's an idiot and couldn't say 'no' to his moron friends on several occasions. Then moved onto heroin and cocaine shortly after because those highs didn't satisfy him anymore, I guess.

But he's doing better now, sort of.


And that's the thing people don't realize.

Oxy is basically legal Heroin,

Want to know what it's effect on kids will be? I'll tell you right now, no trials necessary....

IT'LL F@#K EM' UP!

Edited by terrible.dee, 10 July 2012 - 05:54 PM.

  • 0

#11 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:00 PM

How do you think they treat childhood diseases such as cancer? They drip poison into the arms of children in an attempt to kill cancer cells. How did they originally test childhood cancer drugs after the lab rats? On children. There are hundreds of thousands of adults alive today because that happened. Adults who have gone on to live healthy and productive lives and make huge discoveries in the advancement of medical treatments. Do you honestly think that the drug trials going on now are giving children adult doses of oxycontin? As I stated earlier, it is a well-known fact in medical circles that children sometimes react differently to adult drugs, that their bodies break down and process certain drugs differently.


Hi. Thank you for your reply.
I am not a doctor so I do not know. I do know giving drugs to kids is a dubious undertaking. I would seek an alternate unless the kid was in some horrible pain.

I cited cancer because my mother died of cancer and she was in very serious pain at the end and so the doctors eased her suffering with painkillers. I thought in that case it was justified.
  • 0
Posted Image

#12 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:09 PM

As a matter of fact I do. Do you?

Is this &*@*ing arrogant enough for you?



There was absolutely nothing arrogant about my post. I said apparently, and as the definition of the word, it was fitting here.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so. Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. I don't know you, maybe you are a doctor, maybe you aren't. Last time I checked, the position has it's quacks. Last time I checked, people get second and third opinions on medical related issues. Quite frankly I'm not surprised you're already getting hostile. I haven't even shown hostility.
  • 2
Posted Image

#13 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:11 PM

*
POPULAR

There was absolutely nothing arrogant about my post. I said apparently, and as the definition of the word, it was fitting here.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so. Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. I don't know you, maybe you are a doctor, maybe you aren't. Last time I checked, the position has it's quacks. Last time I checked, people get second and third opinions on medical related issues. Quite frankly I'm not surprised you're already getting hostile. I haven't even shown hostility.


Oh please, get over yourself. I did not say your post was arrogant, a little reading comprehension goes a long way. But nice try, anyway. You didn't even bother to re-read what you actually wrote in the post I responded to before you posted this reply, did you? As per usual.

Just remember, your words "Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about" works both ways.

Haven't shown hostility? Oh puhleeeze, tell us another one, why don't you? :rolleyes:

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 06:14 PM.

  • 5

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#14 Cr8zyCanuck

Cr8zyCanuck

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 07

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:15 PM

On the one hand, I don't have high regard for big pharmaceutical companies using humans as guinea pigs in order to get richer.

On the other hand, I work with children who are often in excruciating, unrelievable pain that isn't helped with the current meds available. Anyone with a modicum of medical knowledge of drugs and pediatric patients is aware that children's bodies often breakdown drugs differently than their adult counterparts do, that their bodies will use these drugs differently than adult bodies do. It's difficult, when you're holding a 3 year old who is screaming in unrelievable agony, not to want to have better drugs that will take care of their pain and give them some relief. So if highly supervised drug trials are taking place, I am torn between wanting a better pain killing drug for my little ones and not wanting big pharmaceutical companies getting richer at the expense of little people.

It is a conundrum.


It's not a conundrum. There are plenty less harmful painkillers out there, already clinically tested with minimal side effects.

You're going to get side effects with any drug whether the biological impact is great or small.

Oxy's side effects in adults (if taken in a pill form) still present to be one of the more dangerous and addictive painkillers on the market.

Canada has some serious laws and regulations against Oxy the U.S.A. has yet to employ.

This drug has bad written all over it.




This is what happens when pharmaceutical corporations are allowed to pour money into congress, the FDA, and politics in general.

The well being of the citizens is not being taken into account here. The drug is made popular because of it's street value more than anything. This is a multi-billion dollar business, where a VAST PERCENTAGE of Oxy sales are going to people who don't need it, and "step" on it, package it, and sell it on the streets.
  • 0

#15 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:16 PM

Oh please, get over yourself. I did not say your post was arrogant, a little reading comprehension goes a long way. But nice try.

Just remember, your words "Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about" works both ways.

Haven't shown hostility? Oh puhleeeze, tell us another one, why don't you? :rolleyes:


Yes, you did. That or you bold that part of my post for the fun of it. You thought I was being a smart ass and evidently I was not. Either way you're getting arrogant now.

I haven't shown hostility. I simply disagreed with you based on what I know and through personal experience as stated above. You're the one getting hostile. You don't need to get upset about it. It definitely wouldn't be the first time you've got angry at someone here in this forum for disagreeing or thinking differently than you. Just about everyone that is a regular here has seen it. Maybe you should step away for five minutes then come back and respond when you're calm. Like I said, I'm not hostile. I'm completely calm. I simply disagreed, that's it.

Edited by Tortorella's Rant, 10 July 2012 - 06:23 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#16 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:16 PM

It's not a conundrum. There are plenty less harmful painkillers out there, already clinically tested with minimal side effects.

You're going to get side effects with any drug whether the biological impact is great or small.

Oxy's side effects in adults (if taken in a pill form) still present to be one of the more dangerous and addictive painkillers on the market.

Canada has some serious laws and regulations against Oxy the U.S.A. has yet to employ.

This drug has bad written all over it.




This is what happens when pharmaceutical corporations are allowed to pour money into congress, the FDA, and politics in general.

The well being of the citizens is not being taken into account here. The drug is made popular because of it's street value more than anything. This is a multi-billion dollar business, where a VAST PERCENTAGE of Oxy sales are going to people who don't need it, and "step" on it, package it, and sell it on the streets.


You obviously did not read my original post in this thread if this is your comment. :)

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 06:22 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#17 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:19 PM

Yes, you did. That or you decided to bold that section of my post for the fun of it. You obviously thought I was being a smart ass and evidently I was not.

I haven't shown hostility. I simply disagreed based on what I know and personal experience and you're getting all angry. Definitely wouldn't be the first time you've got angry in this forum at someone for disagreeing with you.


The hostility is patently obvious in your posts in response to me. I'm not the only one seeing it as my inbox will attest to. And previous history of your posts in response to me confirms it. Of course the snotty comment at the end of that post meant nothing, right? Pffft, and there's a piece of water front real estate in Arizona for sale, too.

Really, brush up on that reading comprehension. You are woefully lacking in it. I highlighted the portion of your post I WAS RESPONDING TO. Are you really this obtuse or working toward a degree in it?

Nice edit of your original post, by the way. Turn the trolling into a nice suggestion......too late.

And hun? You have no idea what I'm like when I'm angry...... this is not it, not even close. But again, nice attempt at trolling. FAIL.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 06:30 PM.

  • 3

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#18 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:29 PM

The hostility is patently obvious in your posts in response to me. I'm not the only one seeing it as my inbox will attest to. And previous history of your posts in response to me confirms it. Of course the snotty comment at the end of that post meant nothing, right? Pffft, and there's a piece of water front real estate in Arizona for sale, too.

Really, brush up on that reading comprehension. You are woefully lacking in it. I highlighted the portion of your post I WAS RESPONDING TO. Are you really this obtuse or working toward a degree in it?

Nice edit of your original post, by the way. Turn the trolling into a nice suggestion......too late.


Given how you overreact to such minor things, it's easy to see how you would have taken what I said as a sarcastic remark. And I wouldn't call it 'snotty' or anything of the sort. And you're proving my point right now anyway. Again, I disagreed and you're upset about it. Clearly. I'm sure this board has an ignore feature, if you don't like what I say you're welcome to use it.
  • 2
Posted Image

#19 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:31 PM

Given how you overreact to such minor things, it's easy to see how you would have taken what I said as a sarcastic remark. And I wouldn't call it 'snotty' or anything of the sort. And you're proving my point right now anyway. Again, I disagreed and you're upset about it. Clearly. I'm sure this board has an ignore feature, if you don't like what I say you're welcome to use it.


As are you. Or is that bolded part in your post not clear enough that that is what I am responding to?

Again, nice attempt at trolling but it's a fail. Again.

And there's no mistaking your intent with that post, none at all. As I said, I'm not the only one seeing it as the PMs in my inbox wondering what the hell your issue is, will confirm.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 06:33 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#20 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:37 PM

Hi. Thank you for your reply.
I am not a doctor so I do not know. I do know giving drugs to kids is a dubious undertaking. I would seek an alternate unless the kid was in some horrible pain.

I cited cancer because my mother died of cancer and she was in very serious pain at the end and so the doctors eased her suffering with painkillers. I thought in that case it was justified.


I most emphatically agree that one should exhaust all other means before resorting to heavy duty drugs for children. But sometimes, you have to go there even though you'd rather not.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom but I'm glad there were drugs available that were able to relieve her pain. Nobody should have to suffer needlessly.
  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#21 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:44 PM

As are you. Or is that bolded part in your post not clear enough that that is what I am responding to?

Again, nice attempt at trolling but it's a fail. Again.

And there's no mistaking your intent with that post, none at all. As I said, I'm not the only one seeing it as the PMs in my inbox wondering what the hell your issue is, will confirm.


My apologies if facts are inconvenient. Actually, I'm not apologetic. That wasn't hostile, I simply stated that you probably would reply in such a manner and you certainly did. As is usually the case. Like I said, hit the ignore button if facts are inconvenient and you don't like people disagreeing with you as you've also made evident.

Wait, she blocked me, right? * Suddenly the arrogance on this forum has cleared up.
  • 3
Posted Image

#22 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:47 PM

My apologies if facts are inconvenient. Actually, I'm not apologetic. That wasn't hostile, I simply stated that you probably would reply in such a manner and you certainly did. As is usually the case. Like I said, hit the ignore button if facts are inconvenient and you don't like people disagreeing with you as you've also made evident.

Wait, she blocked me, right? * Suddenly the arrogance on this forum has cleared up.


:lol:

Just as I thought and you wouldn't know the facts if they snuck up on you and bit you in the ass. But that's ok, just remember your own words in this thread, in black and white..... "Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about"

And back to the topic at hand.....


Hi. Thank you for your reply.
I am not a doctor so I do not know. I do know giving drugs to kids is a dubious undertaking. I would seek an alternate unless the kid was in some horrible pain.

I cited cancer because my mother died of cancer and she was in very serious pain at the end and so the doctors eased her suffering with painkillers. I thought in that case it was justified.


I most emphatically agree that one should exhaust all other means before resorting to heavy duty drugs for children. But sometimes, you have to go there even though you'd rather not.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom but I'm glad there were drugs available that were able to relieve her pain. Nobody should have to suffer needlessly.


Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 06:50 PM.

  • 3

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#23 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:55 PM

:lol:

Just as I thought and you wouldn't know the facts if they snuck up on you and bit you in the ass. But that's ok, just remember your own words in this thread, in black and white..... "Just because you speak with confidence doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about"

And back to the topic at hand.....


If someone can actually come here and confirm what you originally said then I'll gladly believe that. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone spoke with confidence and then was proven to be wrong. Duh. I'm not a doctor by any means, but like I said, I disagree because..

If I'm such a 'troll', then why do you keep responding? Uh huh. You know you love arguing with people :bigblush:
  • 2
Posted Image

#24 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

lol defending giving oxy to kids

moron alert!
  • 2

Posted Image


#25 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:01 PM

lol defending giving oxy to kids

moron alert!


Again, someone who it appears did not read my original post, or any of my other on-topic posts as that is not what I said. And I'm presuming this was directed at me as everyone else has clearly stated their opposition while I attempted to show the conundrum involved.

But of course, this is CDC. Should have known better that to expect people might actually read something as written.

And what's with the name calling? Not read the new board rules yet?

Indeed there are:

a boat load of incompetent posters on this board that don't back up what they say by citing sources or can't get anyone or even a few people to actually confirm what may seem incredibly irresponsible as actually being a good thing. Ignorance can be believing the first thing you hear and not questioning it.


And it's a shame they like to play the passive/aggressive trolling game without bothering to have a look at tenure etc. and the number of mature people who actually respond without personal attacks and trolling. I'll stack my time here and rep against them any day of the week.




Hi. Thank you for your reply.
I am not a doctor so I do not know. I do know giving drugs to kids is a dubious undertaking. I would seek an alternate unless the kid was in some horrible pain.

I cited cancer because my mother died of cancer and she was in very serious pain at the end and so the doctors eased her suffering with painkillers. I thought in that case it was justified.


I most emphatically agree that one should exhaust all other means before resorting to heavy duty drugs for children. But sometimes, you have to go there even though you'd rather not.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom but I'm glad there were drugs available that were able to relieve her pain. Nobody should have to suffer needlessly.


Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 July 2012 - 07:14 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#26 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,822 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:07 PM

lol defending giving oxy to kids

moron alert!


There's a boat load of incompetent posters on this board that don't back up what they say by citing sources or can't get anyone or even a few people to actually confirm what may seem incredibly irresponsible as actually being a good thing. Ignorance can be believing the first thing you hear and not questioning it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#27 DollarAndADream

DollarAndADream

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,426 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 07

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:12 PM

I really don't like this idea.


I know plenty of people who are addicted to Oxys and a couple who have OD'd on them.

Edited by trav_have, 11 July 2012 - 07:05 PM.

  • 2

Posted Image
RIP LB/RR - Signature credit to JimLahey


#28 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:25 PM

*
POPULAR

How do you think they treat childhood diseases such as cancer? They drip poison into the arms of children in an attempt to kill cancer cells. How did they originally test childhood cancer drugs after the lab rats? On children. There are hundreds of thousands of adults alive today because that happened. Adults who have gone on to live healthy and productive lives and make huge discoveries in the advancement of medical treatments. Do you honestly think that the drug trials going on now are giving children adult doses of oxycontin? As I stated earlier, it is a well-known fact in medical circles that children sometimes react differently to adult drugs, that their bodies break down and process certain drugs differently.


Its amazing. With all the info available on the internets there are still idiots out there. Just goes to show the 'net doesnt make one smarter.

I knew of chemos process before the google era. So even for those unfamiliar it aint that hard to find out. And exactly as you have pointed out it kills in the hope it kills the bad before the good. And obviously this had trials to test it.

Sadly you will be arguing with e-warriors whos "knowledge" doesnt extend beyond "big pharma baaaad" and "I read a story once that said oxy is like really addictive, and like baaaad man"
  • 5
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

View Postnhlconspiracy, on 21 April 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.

Logic at its finest.

#29 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:15 PM

*
POPULAR

Its amazing. With all the info available on the internets there are still idiots out there. Just goes to show the 'net doesnt make one smarter.

I knew of chemos process before the google era. So even for those unfamiliar it aint that hard to find out. And exactly as you have pointed out it kills in the hope it kills the bad before the good. And obviously this had trials to test it.

Sadly you will be arguing with e-warriors whos "knowledge" doesnt extend beyond "big pharma baaaad" and "I read a story once that said oxy is like really addictive, and like baaaad man"


No, what's amazing is that with all the information available regarding the illegal and immoral practices of these mega corporations, morons like you and BB will continue to blindly support them and resort to "nutjob" like name calling as if we're the delusional ones for ignoring the facts.

Even when big pharma pleads guilty, you'll still continue to argue the fact.

Let me guess: Court decisions = "knowledge"

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record

(NaturalNews) Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a "criminal racket" over the last few years have been wholly vindicated by recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation's pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.

The picture that's emerging is one of a criminal drug industry that has turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science that would prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those doctors and "skeptics" who defended Big Pharma and vaccines eat their words.

To defend Big Pharma today is to defend a cabal of criminal corporations that have proven they will do anything -- absolutely anything -- to keep their profits rolling in. It makes no difference who they have to bribe, what studies they have to falsify, or who has to be threatened into silence. They will stop at nothing to expand their profit base, even if it means harming (or killing) countless innocents.

Let's take a look at recent revelations:


GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to bribery, fraud and other crimes

It what is now the largest criminal fraud settlement ever to come out of the pharmaceutical industry, GlaxoSmithKline has pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $1 billion in criminal fines and $2 billion in civil fines following a nine-year federal investigation into its activities.

According to U.S. federal investigators, GlaxoSmithKline (http://www.naturalne...riminal_char...):

• Routinely bribed doctors with luxury vacations and paid speaking gigs
• Fabricated drug safety data and lied to the FDA
• Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of billions
• Deceived regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs
• Relied on its deceptive practices to earn billions of dollars selling potentially dangerous drugs to unsuspecting consumers and medical patients

And this is just the part they got caught doing. GSK doesn't even deny any of this. The company simply paid the $3 billion fine, apologized to its customers, and continued conducting business as usual.

By the way, in addition to bribing physicians, GSK has plenty of money to spread around bribing celebrities and others who pimps its products. The company reportedly paid $275,000 to the celebrity doctor known as "Dr. Drew," who promoted Glaxo's mind-altering antidepressant drug Wellbutrin (http://naturalsociet...mithkline-to...).

As the Wall Street Journal reports:

In June 1999, popular radio personality Dr. Drew Pinsky used the airwaves to extol the virtues of GlaxoSmithKline PLC's antidepressant Wellbutrin, telling listeners he prescribes it and other medications to depressed patients because it "may enhance or at least not suppress sexual arousal" as much as other antidepressants do. But one thing listeners didn't know was that, two months before the program aired, Dr. Pinsky -- who gained fame as "Dr. Drew" during years co-hosting a popular radio sex-advice show "Loveline" -- received the second of two payments from Glaxo totaling $275,000 for "services for Wellbutrin."
(http://online.wsj.co...750503200685...)


Merck falsified vaccine data, spiked blood samples and more, say former employees

According to former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, the company: (http://www.naturalne...se_Claims_Ac...)

• "Falsified test data to fabricate a vaccine efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher."

• Spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies.

• Pressured the two virologists to "participate in the fraud and subsequent cover-up."

• Used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."

• Intimidated the scientists, threatening them with going to jail unless they stayed silent.

This is all documented in a 2010 False Claims Act which NaturalNews has acquired and posted here:
http://www.naturalne...Claims-Act.p...


Millions of children put at risk by Merck

In that document the two virologists say they, "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings."

They also claim that because of the faked vaccine results, "the United States has over the last decade paid Merck hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization... The United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck's fraud."

They go on to point out that children are the real victims, however:

"But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. ...The failure in Merck's vaccine has allowed this disease to linger with significant outbreaks continuing to occur."


Merck's mumps viral strain is 45 years old!

According to the complaint, Merck has been using the same mumps strain -- weakened from generations of being "passaged" -- for the last 45 years! The complaint reads:

"For more than thirty years, Merck has had an exclusive license from the FDA to manufacture and sell a mumps vaccine in the U.S. The FDA first approved the vaccine in 1967. It was developed by Dr. Maurice Hilleman, at Merck's West Point research facility, from the mumps virus that infected his five year-old daughter Jeryl Lynn. Merck continues to use this 'Jeryl Lynn' strain of the virus for its vaccine today."


A complete medical farce

This information appears to show Merck's mumps vaccine to be a complete medical farce. Those who blindly backed Merck's vaccines -- the science bloggers, "skeptics," doctors, CDC and even the FDA -- have been shown to be utter fools who have now destroyed their reputations by siding with an industry now known to be dominated by scientific fraud and unbounded criminality.

That's the really hilarious part in all this: After decades of doctors, scientists and government authorities blindly and brainlessly repeating the mantra of "95% effectiveness," it all turns out to be total quackery hogwash. Utterly fabricated. Quackety-quack quack. And all those hundreds of millions of Americans who lined up to be injected with MMR vaccines were all repeatedly and utterly conned into potentially harming themselves while receiving no medical benefit.

Intelligent, informed NaturalNews readers, home school parents, and "awakened" people who said "No!" to vaccines are now emerging as the victors in all this. By refusing to be injected with Merck's vaccines, they avoided being assaulted with a fraudulent cocktail of adjuvant chemicals and all-but-useless mumps strains over four decades old. They protected their time, money and health. Those who refuse to be physically violated by vaccines are, once again, turning out to be the smartest people in society. No wonder they also tend to be healthier than the clueless fools who line up to get vaccinated every year.


Merck fraudulently misrepresented the efficacy of its vaccine and contributed to the spread of infectious disease, says lawsuit

The faked vaccine efficacy numbers aren't the only troubles Merck is now facing. Shortly after the above False Claims Act was made public, Chatom Primary Care filed suit against Merck. That document is available from NaturalNews at:
http://www.naturalne...it-Merck-Mum...

It alleges that:

• [Merck engaged in] ...a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.

• Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher.

• Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal -- by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data -- that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.

• Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.

• Merck also engaged in "incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results... destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator... threatened a virologist in Merck's vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA."

• "Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings. [Then] Merck designed even more scientifically flawed methodology, this time incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck's fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having achieved the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the FDA and European Medicines Agency."

• "Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator... Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its staff by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of Merck personnel overseeing the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened... Stephen Krahling, a virologist in Merck's vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail if he reported fraud to the FDA."

• "Merck continued to conceal what it knew about the diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine even after significant mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009."


Obama administration has zero interest in actual justice

Another interesting note in all this is that under President Obama, the U.S. Dept. of Justice showed no interest whatsoever in investigating Merck over the False Claims Act filed by two of its former virologists. Despite the convincing evidence of fraud described in detail by insider whistleblowers, the Obama Department of Justice, led by gun-running Attorney General Eric Holder who is already facing serious questions over Operation Fast and Furious, simply chose to ignore the False Claims Act complaint.

When evidence of criminal fraud was brought before the U.S. Department of Justice, in other words, the DoJ looked the other way with a wink and a nod to the medical crimes taking place right under their noses. Who cares if tens of millions of children are being injected year after year with a fraudulent mumps vaccine? There's money to be made, after all, and exploiting the bodies of little children for profit is just business as usual in a fascist nation dominated by corporate interests.


Pfizer sued by retailers over anticompetitive scheme

Adding to all this, Pfizer has now been sued by five U.S. retailers (pharmacies) who accuse the company of monopolistic market practices. According to the lawsuit, Pfizer conspired to prevent generic versions of its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor from entering the market. This was done to protect billions in profits while making sure patients did not have access to more affordable cholesterol drugs. Pfizer sells nearly $10 billion worth of Lipitor each year.

According to the Reuters report on this lawsuit, Pfizer is being accused of (http://www.reuters.c...een-lipitor-...):

• Obtaining a fraudulent patent
• Engaging in sham litigation
• Entering a price-fixing agreement to delay cheaper generics
• Entering arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers to force retailers to buy more Lipitor (chemical name is atorvastatin calcium)


No arrests or prosecution of Big Pharma executives

One of the most astonishing realizations in all this is that given all the criminal fraud, bribery, misrepresentation, lying to the FDA, price fixing and other crimes that are going on in the pharmaceutical industry, you'd think somebody somewhere might be arrested and charged with a crime, right?

Nope.

To date, not a single pharmaceutical CEO, marketing employee or drug rep has been charged with anything related to all this fraud. In America, drug company employees are "above the law" just like top mafia bosses of a bygone era.

How insane is this, exactly? Consider this:

Imagine if YOU, an individual, went around town bribing doctors, falsifying data, selling a fraudulent product to the government, lying to regulators, engaging in anti-trade price-fixing and threatening your employees into silence. What would happen to you?

You'd probably wind up rotting in prison, the subject of an FBI investigation and a DoJ prosecution.

So why is it okay for a multi-billion-dollar corporation to carry out these same crimes and get away with it? Why are the CEOs of top drug companies given a free pass to commit felony crimes and endless fraud?

I'll tell you why, and you're not gonna like the answer: Because America has become a nation run by crooks for the benefit of crooks. It's one big country club, and as comedian George Carlin used to say, "YOU ain't in it!"


If Big Pharma would falsify data on vaccines, what else would the industry do?

I hope you're getting the bigger picture in all this, friends. If these drug companies routinely bribe doctors, falsify data, defraud the government and commit felony crimes without remorse, what else would they be willing to do for profit?

Would they:

• Falsify efficacy data on other prescription drugs?
• Exploit children for deadly vaccine trials?
• Invent fictitious diseases to sell more drugs?
• Unleash bioweapons to cause a profitable pandemic?
• Conspire with the CDC to spread fear to promote vaccinations?
• Silence whistleblowers who try to go public with the truth?
• Give people cancer via stealth viruses in vaccines?
• Destroy the careers of medical scientists who question Big Pharma?
• Force a medical monopoly on the entire U.S. population via socialist health care legislation?


Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz20I9uMMqo


Edited by dank., 10 July 2012 - 11:17 PM.

  • 5

Posted Image


#30 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:19 PM

Dank you are hardly the torchbearer for sanity.


  • 2
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

View Postnhlconspiracy, on 21 April 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.

Logic at its finest.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.