Human Sacrifice for Science

Sacrifice in the Name of Scientific Progress

No one doubts the importance of testing new drugs before they come to market. Much of the early testing involves mice, and we don’t usually care when participating mice meet untimely deaths. Rarely do we even hear about the mice that sacrifice their lives for the good of scientific progress.

But it’s a whole different story when human participants begin losing their lives. That’s what happened to nine out of more than 350 people participating in clinical studies aimed at testing the effectiveness of a new drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

The fate of ELND005

The potential new weapon in the fight against Alzheimer’s is referred to as ELND005, or scyllo-inositol. After the U.S. FDA awarded the experimental drug Fast Track classification back in April, 2009, testing of 3 different dosages began. The highest dosage studied is 2,000 mg, administered twice a day. The second-highest dosage studied is 1,000 mg, also administered twice a day. A third and much lower dosage of 250 mg administered twice daily is also being studied. Some participants received a placebo.

After nine deaths and the development of other adverse reactions deemed serious, developers of the experimental drug made the decision in December to halt study of the two highest dosages. They did this even though no direct connection between the higher doses and the complications had been established. They cited their commitment to patient safety as the reason.

The two companies have decided, along with the Independent Safety Monitoring Committee, to continue unchanged their studies on the lowest-dose ELND005. All parties involved feel confident the progress that’s been made so far combined with the known safety and tolerability issues associated with the lower dosage warrants continued study.


This got me thinking

That decision made me think about the remaining participants and how they’re reacting to news of these deaths.

• Are they scared to continue?
• Do they cross their fingers each night and hope that they’re receiving the placebo?
• Have they been given the option of opting out?
• How much of what’s going on do they even comprehend?

I don’t know about you, but the idea of participating in clinical studies to test an experimental drug’s effectiveness scares me. It got me wondering whether I’d ever knowingly put my health at risk in that way. So far I haven’t been willing to do this and I wonder, does this mean I’m weak? Selfish? Uncaring?

And what about people who do participate? Do they do so because they have no other options and nothing to lose? Does this make them heroes? Do they receive any special acknowledgment?

There probably are people that participate for the money. But maybe people do it for no other reason than the satisfaction they get from helping find cures that will one day eliminate the suffering of millions.

And now I want to know

Have you ever participated in a clinical study?

If so, what was your motivation?

To Tan or Not to Tan

That is the question...

Tanned skin wasn’t always as highly sought after as it is today. In earlier times, whether or not your skin was tanned was an obvious sign of where you stood in society. Fair skin meant wealth, and tanned skin meant poverty. People with tans got them because of long hours spent laboring in the fields while the wealthy individuals who hired them sat comfortably beneath the shade.

Sometime during the past century, opinions changed. I think change started with Coco Chanel, when she returned from a cruise sporting a deep tan. Around that same time, women’s roles were beginning to change, too. And as roles changed, so did the perception of skin color. Suddenly, after centuries of going to sometimes extreme lengths to achieve the palest skin, a quest for the deepest, darkest tan had taken hold.

In the years since, people have spent countless hours baking in the sun. Thanks to the invention of the tanning beds some 30 years ago, even people without access to the sun can “tan.” Today, tanned skin is a symbol of beauty and ironically, good health.

But is it?

Ultraviolet rays, both UVA and UVB, have long been at the center of controversy. UV rays are emitted by the sun and also by tanning beds. For years, experts have warned of the importance of applying sunscreen while outdoors and of limiting outdoor exposure to certain times of the day. Some people have listened, but most have not.


Now in a few months, the FDA will convene public hearings aimed at changing its regulatory power over tanning beds. Currently, the FDA classifies tanning beds as minimal risk medical devices. Referred to as “Class 1” this low-level classification is the same classification that’s applied to bandages. The FDA also wants more regulation over tanning bed warning labels.

Maybe what’s fueling the FDA’s quest for tighter tanning bed regulation is the World Health Organization. Just last year, the WHO stated definitively that tanning beds cause cancer. This came in response to recently completed studies concluding that the risks of developing melanoma, a dangerous malignant tumor that occurs mostly on the skin, increases a whopping 75% in people that frequent tanning beds during their younger years.

A different approach

My guess is the FDA realizes that, like the sun, people won’t be willing to give up their tanning beds either. Instead of fighting what will probably be a losing battle, maybe they hope to scare people into paying more attention to the increased health risks of tanning bed overuse.

Their message: More time spent in tanning beds won’t necessarily result in considerably darker skin, but could result in a greater risk of developing melanoma, or basal and squamous cell carcinomas.

I don’t know if this strategy will work, or if the FDA will even succeed in getting the increased regulatory authority it seeks.

But I do know that if we could go back to the way things were, we wouldn’t even have to participate in the great debate over tanning bed safety!

Counterfeit Medications

Be on the Lookout for Fake Alli

You almost had to expect that sooner or later, counterfeit versions of a popular weight loss product would start popping up. And that’s exactly what happened. The latest target is Alli, an over-the-counter pill taken by more than 7 million people each day.

The FDA has confirmed the fake Alli, and warns users to be aware that counterfeit versions are on the market. So far, complaints have been limited to 120-count refill packs containing 60-milligram pills sold online, particularly on auction sites. But that could change at any time.

What’s in counterfeit Alli?

Fake Alli doesn’t contain orlistat like real Alli does. Instead the fake pills contain a prescription strength drug called sibutramine. What’s particularly troublesome about this drug—besides the fact that it’s in there at all—is the amount people may be taking.

People using Alli to help lose weight take one Alli pill three times a day. If they’re unknowingly taking counterfeit Alli as directed, they will ingest potentially dangerous amounts of a drug that’s also classified as a controlled substance. Some effects sibutramine may trigger include heart palpitations, shakiness, anxiety, nausea, dry mouth, and sleeplessness.

Anyone taking fake Alli can experience these unpleasant effects. But people suffering from cardiovascular disease, which many overweight people are, have even more to worry about. Sibutramine could cause their blood pressure to increase even further, and/or put them at higher risk of a stroke or heart attack.

If you suspect counterfeit Alli

Anyone taking Alli and experiencing any of the health effects mentioned above should suspect fake Alli, especially if the product was purchased through an online auction site. They should immediately report their suspicions to GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Alli.

Even though there have been no reports of counterfeit Alli purchased through retail outlets and legitimate online pharmacies, it’s important that users know the signs that indicate they may not have the real thing. The signs are clearly visible once you know what to look for.
Four ways to tell if your Alli is real or fake:

1) Lot Code: Authentic Alli lists a Lot code right on top of the box. The packaging for counterfeit Alli does not include any Lot code, anywhere.
2) Expiration date: There’s a noticeable difference in the way the expiration date is displayed. Real Alli packaging lists only the month and year (i.e., 3/11). The expiration date listed on counterfeit Alli packaging also includes a day (i.e., 3/17/11).
3) Safety Seal: The safety seal on authentic Alli displays the words “SEALED FOR YOUR PROTECTION” which are printed in white. The safety seal on fake Alli is totally blank.
4) Pill size and contents: Fake Alli pills are a bit bigger than real Alli, plus fake Alli contents are powdery whereas a pellet-like form is in real Alli.

If you’ve recently purchased Alli, inspect the capsules and packaging to be sure they’re real. And if you’re going to order any drugs online, order only from reputable and trusted sources like PharmacyEscrow.com. Remember, fake Alli isn’t the only counterfeit drug out there.

More on that next time.

E-Cigarette Update

E-Cigarette Import Ban Lifted

Is the FDA protecting public health, or is it protecting Uncle Sam’s wallet? Like most spicy conspiracy theories, to get to the bottom of this one, you have to follow the money.

On January 14, 2009, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon decided that the U.S. FDA could no longer block the importation of electronic, or e-cigarettes, those battery-operated cigarette look-alikes that produce no smoke or carcinogens.

For years, the FDA has justified the importation ban because in its view, e-cigarettes are unapproved gadgets designed to deliver drugs. But the judge didn’t agree. Instead, his decision sided with e-cigarette manufacturers who claim they’re no different than a pack of regular cigarettes and should be regulated in the same way.

They’re also the parties that brought suit against the FDA’s importation ban. The federal judge even went as far as saying that this case is “another example of F.D.A.'s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices."

The FDA’s reaction

Needless to say, the FDA was not happy with Judge Leon’s decision. The regulatory agency stands firm on its belief that e-cigarettes are a public safety threat. It’s so concerned that the Administration is using public safety as the basis for crafting an appropriate response to Judge Leon’s decision.

Which is actually kind of funny in a way. Seems to me if the FDA really was concerned about public safety, they would have done something about real cigarettes long ago. Cigarettes are addictive and they cause cancer. If anything should be banned, it seems cigarettes should be. But they aren’t.


E-cigarettes are—or at least the were—until the federal judge got involved.

And that’s what got me thinking about the money trail and what is more likely behind the FDA’s hesitation to give e-cigarettes the thorough regulatory review they’re due. If e-cigarettes really are a safer alternative to cigarettes, the FDA should let the world know about it. And if they aren’t any better, the world should know that, too.

So why has the FDA been hesitant to conduct more tests on e-cigarettes?

Judge Leon may have taken away any excuses the Administration might have. In another part of his decision, he reminded the FDA that because of the sweeping tobacco legislation passed last year, it has the power to regulate all marketing claims made by e-cigarettes manufacturers. And it has the power to regulate e-cigarette contents. But will it exercise that power?

Here’s what I think

Maybe the FDA doesn’t want to find a safer alternative to cigarettes because of the impact a discovery like this might have on the U.S. economy. Imagine how many jobs would be lost or affected if cigarette demand declined because of competition—farmers, tobacco pickers, tobacco processors, packagers, convenience store owners—the list goes on and on. Now think how much less revenue the U.S. government would take in from taxes and regulatory measures. This could cripple the economy.
And maybe that’s the real problem with e-cigarettes. It’s just a thought.

Aspartame...

Helpful Friend or Deadly Foe?

As we continue waging war against our weight, many of us will consider adding aspartame to our arsenal.

Aspartame is a popular artificial sweetener that is a couple of hundred times sweeter than regular table sugar. Most people are more familiar with its packaging than its name. It’s the one in the blue package called Equal. It’s also marketed as NutraSweet and Spoonful.

If you like super sweet things, aspartame may be a good choice. It has only about 4 calories per gram, which is negligible. And since it’s so sweet, you really don’t need that much. So calorie-wise, aspartame’s impact on your diet is barely noticeable.

Aspartame is not a sugar. It’s a synthetic blend of amino acids that gained FDA approval decades ago. Aspartame doesn’t perform well when heated, so you’ll usually find aspartame in soft drinks, pudding, yogurt, breath mints, gelatin, tea, and other dietary products. It’s also added into some vitamins and sugar-free cough suppressors.

Because it’s not a sugar, aspartame will not cause cavities. It also won’t affect glucose levels, so it’s perfect for diabetics searching for sweet tastes that won’t affect blood-sugar. Its use saves money for manufactures since only a little bit of aspartame is needed to achieve the same level of sweetness that sugar provides.


That’s the good news about Aspartame.

But of course, whenever it seems like there’s a good way to help people lose weight and maintain weight loss, plenty of critics come out of the woodwork.

• One study involving rats fed aspartame-sweetened yogurt suggests that aspartame promotes weight gain. The reasoning is that since aspartame is synthetic, it’s effective in getting taste buds excited. But it does nothing to satisfy taste buds so they crave more calories; creating somewhat of an instant appetite, so people eat more.

• Another study linked aspartame with the development in mice of brain damage. It also linked aspartame with the development of cancerous tumors in rats. Participating rats developed tumors in the testes, liver and thyroid. Believe it or not, this study was conducted by Searle, the company that discovered the artificial sweetener! Rumor has it the results weren’t published or reported to the FDA.

• Yet another study showed that even at levels below currently acceptable daily intake levels (which, if you’re wondering, is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight), aspartame had the potential to cause cancer.

• A whole army of scientists believe back-room negotiating going led to aspartame’s approval by the FDA.

• And there’s more. Aspartame has also been blamed for causing headaches, dizziness, and even Gulf War syndrome. Huh?

Who’s right and who’s wrong?

FDA spokespersons stand by their decisions, and point out that aspartame has been extensively studied by regulatory agencies in other countries. Others stand by their test results and their beliefs that aspartame is nothing more than sweet poison and should be avoided.

Me? I’ll stick with natural sweeteners because I believe natural is always better—in moderation, of course.

What do you think?

Pfizer looking for more profits

Pfizer Looks at New Ways to Make Huge Profits

If you’re a savvy entrepreneur looking for a way to make a boatload of money, you might focus your money-making efforts on the latest trends. Or you might decide the best way to strike it rich is by fulfilling a need that millions of people around the world have.

But if you’re a pharmaceutical giant like Pfizer, you look at these two ideas and think, “been there, done that; now it’s time for a new approach.”

And that’s exactly what’s behind Pfizer’s latest move that drove its stock price up nearly 4 percent.

Small demand, huge profit potential

That’s the new mantra at Pfizer and lots of other pharmaceutical manufacturers that have started placing more emphasis on the tremendous profit-making potential behind finding solutions to problems suffered by only a small segment of society.

At the moment Pfizer has its sights on a rare inherited disorder called Gaucher disease. Gaucher disease is so rare that is occurs in only about one out of every 20,000 live births. The disease is characterized by an insufficient quantity of an important enzyme that the body needs to break down a particular fat molecule. When these fat molecules aren’t broken down, cells engorged with lipids begin to accumulate, mostly in the liver and spleen, and can cause enlargement of these organs. Bleeding, bruising, anemia, and bone disease are some of the other health problems associated with Gaucher disease.


How big are the possible stakes?

They’re big enough that Pfizer is paying $60 million upfront to a company called Protaliz, a biopharmaceutical company that is in the process of seeking FDA approval for a first-of-its-kind treatment for Gaucher disease. This will be followed by up to $55 million in additional payments to the company. In exchange Protaliz is giving Pfizer exclusive worldwide licensing rights to distribute the drug everywhere except Israel, and will split the profits 60-40 with Pfizer getting 60%.

What makes this new drug so attractive and so promising?

It’s the first ever enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher disease to be derived from a plant. The therapy will be manufactured using Protaliz’ proprietary extraction system and genetically-engineered carrot cells.

Known as taliglucerase alfa, this innovative therapy has successfully completed Phase III clinical studies and has been given Fast-Track status and other designations by the U.S. FDA to help speed the approval process. If all goes according to plans, taliglucerase alfa could be available as an alternative treatment for Gaucher disease in about a year.

That’s great news for people suffering from Gaucher disease. And it’s good news for Pfizer too, especially since the biggest competitor to taliglucerase alfa costs patients a whopping $200,000 per year. The process to manufacture taliglucerase alfa is not nearly as costly, and that means taliglucerase alfa could be offered at a much lower—but still pretty hefty—price.

Pfizer’s commitment to finding treatments for people affected by rare disorders is admirable, perhaps even humanitarian. But this move, like all its others, is really about the bottom line.

And there’s probably nothing wrong with that...

Biotech Company Grabs the Golden Ticket

Biotech Company Grabs the Golden Ticket with New Drug to Treat Hereditary Disease

If you’re a shareholder of Cambridge-based biotech Dyax Corp. (NasdaqGM: DYAX), or you suffer from a hereditary disease known as angioedema, or HAE, life just got a bit better.

Shareholders woke up to discover that the company’s stock soared by 20% recently thanks to receiving F.D.A. approval of a drug named Kalbitor. It’s intended to treat HAE in patients aged 16 or older, which, according to last count, includes around 10,000 people in the U.S. who suffer from this rare hereditary disease.

Rare but serious

Now you wouldn’t think a drug that was limited to a market size of just 10,000 would be any big deal, but that’s probably because you don’t live in fear of having your larynx swelling shut and then dying from asphyxiation.

And that’s just one of the rain clouds that hang over the heads of people with this disease. Other less severe but extremely painful symptoms include swelling in the abdomen, face, hands and feet.

But don’t feel bad for these guys, because even 10,000 sales per month can generate some serious money when your competitor sells an HAE drug for $5,000 to $8,000 per treatment.

The company hasn’t tipped us off to what they will be charging, but Dyax CEO Gustav A. Christensen says the company expects to expand its current 110 person workforce by hiring 16 salespeople to take the new drug to market.


Is Cambridge slated to become a new biotech Mecca?

Dyax is the second biotech company in the historic college city of Cambridge, known to locals as “The Kingdom of Cambridge,” to win F.D.A. drug approval. Gloucester Pharmaceuticals, a privately-held company, won F.D.A. approval in November 2009 for Istodax, a drug that treats a rare form of skin cancer.

That company’s achievement caught the eye of Celgene Corporation (NASDAQ:CELG), who just announced their intent to acquire Gloucester Pharmaceuticals.

Success breeds imitation, so it’s quite possible other biotechs will have their eyes on Cambridge as a potential new home. That’s good news in an ailing economy.

Bigger pharmaceutical companies frequently wait on the sidelines watching for smaller companies that clear F.D.A. hurdles and then swoop in to scoop up these budding cash cows.

But apparently Dyax intends to keep their cow in their own pasture. The company’s CEO says they have the infrastructure necessary to take the drug to greener pastures all by themselves.

What do you think about pharmaceutical costs? Given that it can take 10 years and millions of dollars to bring a product to market, how much profit is reasonable for a company to earn?

What would you be willing to pay for a vial of liquid that could increases the odds of going to sleep breathing and waking up the next morning the same way?

And what do you think the survival odds are for a drug that may sell for more than $5,000 a pop if the national health care bill gets passed?

Drug Giant Pfizer

Taking Down a Giant One Lawsuit at a Time

If you’ve taken, are taking, or are considering taking hormonal drugs including Prempro, Pemarin, or Provera, you’ll be interested in today’s topic.

Just recently, drug manufacturing giant Pfizer was dealt a double-whammy in separate lawsuits filed by two women who claim they developed breast cancer after taking hormonal drugs. One judgment was for $23 million, and the other, decided a month ago but kept sealed so that its decision would not prejudice the $23 million case, was for a whopping $75 million!

At the moment, punitive damages totaling $103 million isn’t too big of a concern for drug manufacturing giant Pfizer. That’s because the company plans to appeal both decisions. But what may cause company representatives some concern is the 10,000 other lawsuits that have been filed around the country against the company’s hormonal drugs.

Lawsuits, even though they drag on for years, do eventually come to a close. So too, does the appeals process. And if more of these difficult-to-prove lawsuits are decided in the plaintiffs’ favor, the drug maker will have no choice but to pay some hefty damages.

In the meantime, hormone drugs continue to be prescribed and taken by millions of women despite warnings dating back to 2002 of a link between estrogen and breast cancer. Back then, the news brought sales of hormone therapy drugs almost to a standstill.


But like most things, time has a way of bringing a return to normalcy. Despite black box warnings on the labels, sales of both estrogen-only drugs and combination estrogen-progestin drugs are on the rise. So it’s really no wonder that lawsuits are of little concern.

What also has Pfizer unconcerned about the lawsuits is one small but significant fact: So far, the drugs still have F.D.A. approval. And as long as Pfizer still has the backing of the F.D.A., marketing of the drug will continue, and so too will sales.

Who’s right?

Many critics claim that Pfizer is more interested in making a profit than in public safety. They believe Pfizer has an obligation to deal with the lawsuits and bring them to closure as expeditiously as possible.

But that is easier said than done. And the company really has no incentive to act quickly or any differently. It understands its rights and has the resources to go down every legal avenue it can in an effort to protect it reputation and its profits.

The company also believes it has taken steps to protect the public’s safety and points to the inclusion of a warning on the product’s label advising users to take low doses of the drug for the shortest amount of time possible. For what they’re worth, the company also conducts its own studies on the risks and benefits of the drug. And it continues to work closely with the F.D.A.

Ironically, consumers have much more power than they realize. But until they exercise that power, huge drug companies like Pfizer will continue holding all the power and making enormous profits.

Please tell us what you think!

Shingles Pain

New Relief for Shingles Pain

No matter what your opinion of them, you gotta love the drug manufacturers. Together they make up a multi-billion dollar industry that keeps turning out one remedy after another. Whatever your troubles, there’s likely a pill that can alleviate the symptoms. Or a mist, or an ointment, or in this case, a patch. 

If you have shingles, you’ll be happy to know there’s a new way to help with the pain that never seems to go away, even after the scarring does. 

The natural substance that gives chili peppers their burn potential is the active ingredient in the recently approved drug designed to help alleviate the burning, pain and that stabbing feeling that often lingers after a bout with shingles. Known to doctors and suffers as post-herpetic neuralgia or PHN, the pain affects a small portion of shingles sufferers. But for that 10 to 15% of the population, the pain is very intense, very real, and sometimes unbearable.  

The newly-approved drug is called Quetenza and it derives its relief power from a synthetic form of capsaicin, a naturally-occurring substance familiar to anyone that frequently indulges in Mexican Sichuan Chinese food. Quetenza is not a pill. It’s a patch that a doctor applies to the area of the body experiencing PHN. The patch remains in place for an hour. After that, its pain reducing abilities can last up to 12 weeks. 

Why can’t patients apply the patch?

Interestingly enough, the Quetenza patch hurts when applied. Actually, it burns. During the drug’s clinical studies, close to half of the patients reported feeling pain during application, and over half reported that their skin turned red. That prompted drug manufacturer Lohmann Therapy Systems, based in Andernach, Germany, to add wording on the label to warn users of “substantial procedural pain.” 


Before application, a topical anesthetic is applied to the area of adhesion to help alleviate the pain. Patients can also be given other types of pain relief during application and afterwards to help with the lingering pain, without fear of unfavorable drug interactions.

What makes Quetenza different from other remedies?

Quetenza is not the first drug to use synthetic capsaicin to help alleviate pain. Several are available over-the-counter. But it’s the first prescription-strength drug containing pure, concentrated, man-made capsaicin to undergo FDA review. 

• Shingles is more prevalent than people realize, with nearly one million Americans developing it each year.
• A Shingles outbreak occurs when the herpes zoster virus, better known as the chicken pox virus, reactivates. Most of the time, the virus remains dormant in the nerve roots.
• PHN results when nerves are damaged by a Shingles outbreak. Even after Shingles scarring has gone away, the pain can persist. If the pain is intense, it can affect sleep, work, normal activities, and mood.

It’s not a cure

Quetenza is not a cure for PHN or for Shingles. But so far it has proven effective at reducing the amount of pain associated with PHN. 

FDA Targets Makers of Caffeine/Alcohol Beverages

What do you get when you mix caffeine with an alcoholic beverage?

Well, 27 manufacturing firms of these so-called energizing alcoholic drinks recently received a letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA). And that’s something food and beverage manufactures don’t usually like to get.

In that letter, the FDA gave recipients just 30 days to prove that drinks combining alcohol and caffeine are safe. This letter follows a letter that the U.S. FDA received from a recently convened task force of 4 attorneys general and 14 law enforcement officials from various states, cities, and territories.

Seeking a nationwide ban on drinks marketed under the names of Slingshot Party Gel, Agwa De Bolivia, Moonshot, Belevedere IX, Evil Eyes and others, the task force feels strongly that the drinks pose a serious risk to public health. The danger, they believe, lies in the potential for caffeine to cover up the effects of the alcohol.

Feeling wide awake but drunk

This is the task force’s primary concern. They believe that because of the caffeine, drinkers won’t “feel” as affected by the alcohol. If they don’t feel as alcoholically-challenged (a.k.a. drunk) as they really are, they might engage in risky behavior, like driving when they shouldn’t, engaging in violent or abusive behavior, or making other bad decisions, and as a consequence, endanger themselves and others.


Wondering how a potentially dangerous beverage is even available for sale??

Here’s how it happened...

Whenever manufacturers of a new food or beverage product do not take steps to seek FDA approval, the manufacturers can market the products as long as the addition of caffeine is “generally recognized as safe.” However, those manufacturers also bear the responsibility of proving to the FDA their product’s safety. In this case, 27 makers of alcoholic beverages with added caffeine have 30 days to gather sufficient proof and present it to the FDA. If the manufacturers cannot provide proof that satisfies the FDA, the FDA can order that the sale of these products must be discontinued.

Knowing that it can take a really long time for FDA approval, and knowing that it can take a long time before the FDA sends letters like the ones sent recently to caffeine and alcohol beverage manufactures, some manufactures seized on the opportunity to make a quick, potentially lucrative profit.

Witnessing the massive popularity among younger adults of mixing vodka with Red Bull, apparently these beverage manufacturers decided it was worth it to take a gamble. They also saw an opportunity last year when two big caffeinated alcoholic beverage makers Anheuser-Busch InBev NV and MillerCoors LLC voluntarily agreed to remove stimulant ingredients from their beverages. And so they seized on the opportunity.

Only time will tell what happens next. Members of the task force and many others are very concerned and feel the time has come to get these dangerous beverages off store shelves. They doubt the manufacturers’ ability to adequately prove the alcohol/caffeine combination is safe.

Stay tuned for more updates.

FDA and Social Media

FDA Considers Best Way to Regulate Online Content

What started out as a convenient way for people to get together online has rapidly turned into a very effective way to advertise products, services and businesses. I’m talking about social media sites and if you’ve visited any lately, you know there’s a lot of business promotion going on in an environment initially designed for socializing.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of business happens after business hours. Just think of all the deals that have been made at golf courses, fancy restaurants, elegant dinner parties, and other social venues. So the evolution of social media sites into arenas for quick, easy and widespread promotion isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The FDA’s dilemma

But what has the U.S. FDA in a quandary is how to rein in and control what’s being said online regarding medicines and medical devices. It probably doesn’t surprise you that as good as the Internet is at spreading information, it is even better at spreading misinformation. And that’s a problem.

In an effort to gather input as to whether and how it should regulate internet promotion of the medical devices and drugs it already oversees, the FDA recently held a public hearing. In attendance were several very interested parties including representatives from internet companies Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia and other internet businesses, drug manufacturers, and non-profit organizations.

The Internet is virgin territory for the FDA, and like the Wild West days, today’s Internet era is somewhat lawless. The information out there is inconsistent. It’s very often inaccurate. And a lot of it is simply incomplete, especially when it comes to the medicines and medical devices. All too often, we see web sites boasting the benefits of something while making no mention of any of the side effects or risks.


You won’t see this type of one-sided promotion in traditional media like TV, magazine ads and newspaper ads. But you see it all over the internet. And do you know why? It’s because the FDA hasn’t yet figured out the best way to control what’s being said on blogs, Twitter, Wikipedia, and all the other social media and medical information sites.

Consumer protection or governmental control?

Now you could make the argument that this is just one more case of the government trying to take control. But what they’re really trying to do is find a way to protect public safety. Let’s face it. When you have a medical question, are you more likely to call your doctor or tap away on your keyboard?

If you still call your doctor for advice, you’re rare indeed. Most of us turn to the Internet, and base our decisions on what we find. Some users dig deep and try to sort out the valid information from the hype. But most don’t.

What ideas were tossed about at the public hearing?

• Applying tags to better monitor Twitter conversations
• Development of a safety logo that when clicked, would link to sites containing information approved by the FDA.

It’s a good start, but like everything the FDA does, it’s bound to take a long time before any decisions are finalized.

WARNING - Slim Fast Product Recall

Hit Recently by a Bout of Diarrhea, Nausea or Vomiting?

If you’re a Slim-Fast shake lover, that delicious tasting beverage in a can might be the reason.

Just last week, the manufacturer of Slim-Fast ready-to-drink products issued a nationwide recall, informing consumers that its liquid beverage products may be contaminated with a more annoying than dangerous micro-organism called Bacillus cereus.

To be on the safe side, the company is voluntarily recalling all of its canned beverage products. The recall made no distinction between different flavors, or the “Best- By” date, carton size, lot number, or anything. If it’s a Slim-Fast flavored beverage and it’s in a steel can, it is subject to the recall.

Check your shelves

If you find any Slim-Fast ready-to-drink beverage products, don’t drink them. Instead, discard them as a precaution. And don’t worry about the money. The company will give anyone affected by the recall a full refund upon request. Company representatives understand this is an inconvenience and they want to make the process as easy as possible for consumers.

They also want to stress that the only products affected by the recall are the canned ready-to-drink beverages. None of its other products are included in the recall – not its meal-on-the-go bars or the snack bars. Also not affected is the Slim Fast line of powered beverages. So don’t think you have to discard these products “just to be on the safe side” because that’s not necessary.

For the time being, production of Slim Fast ready-to-drink beverages has been halted. The company expects this to be temporary and plans to resume manufacturing after it uncovers the reason for the Bacillus cereus contamination and takes steps to prevent this type of contamination from happening again.


With the New Year rapidly approaching, you can bet it’s all-hands-on-deck at Slim-Fast headquarters in an effort to resume normal operations. Millions of consumers choose Slim-Fast products to help with their weight loss and maintenance efforts. And it’s no wonder. The products are tasty, filling, and probably most important in today’s instant gratification society, they’re convenient. Just pop open a canned beverage and drink one for breakfast and another for lunch. That’s it. When you choose Slim Fast beverages, there’s no measuring, no calorie-counting, or and for 2 meals each day, there’s no planning.

In the meantime

If you’ve had one of these ready-to-drink beverages recently, don’t be alarmed. But do be on the lookout for symptoms of food poisoning. Depending on the behavior of the Bacillus cereus micro-organism you may experience one of two types of illness. You may feel nausea or experience vomiting shortly after drinking contaminated Slim Fast. These symptoms last about a day.

Or 6 to 21 hours after ingestion, you may experience watery diarrhea, cramps in the abdomen, or pain. These symptoms typically go away within 24 hours. Rarely will you experience all of these symptoms, or symptoms lasting more than a day.

The good news

If a day or more has passed since you drank a can of Slim Fast and you haven’t developed any symptoms, chances are you won’t.

Cigarette Smoking

Some News about Cigarette Smoking

Few deaths are as preventable as those that result from cigarette smoking. When you stop and think about the many different ways cigarette smoking harms the body, it really is amazing that anyone still does it. Cigarette smoking damages your heart, your lungs, your esophagus, your skin, your teeth, gums, lips, and more.

I’m not saying anything that smokers aren’t already well aware of. Many years have been spent arguing lawsuits against tobacco companies. Countless dollars have been spent on campaigns designed to increase public awareness. Schools teach children as young as 10 about the dangers of smoking.

Yet still, millions of people across the globe continue to do it. It doesn’t seem to matter that nearly five and a half million people die each year because of tobacco or that the death toll is expected to increase dramatically to over 8 million in just 20 years.

According to the World Health Organization, there are about 1.3 billion smokers in the world right now and if that’s not scary enough, the organization also reports that a former or current smoker dies every 6.5 seconds. That’s nearly 10 people every single minute of every hour, every day of the year. One-third to one-half of all smokers lives an average of 15 years less than those who don’t smoke. For those that live, smoking affects their quality of life to a much greater extent than those that don’t.

Safer cigarettes?

Regardless of what smokers want to believe, there aren’t any “safe” cigarettes, either. Flavored cigarettes are just as deadly. In fact, the US FDA recently banned the sale of flavored cigarettes to minors. Cigarettes that taste like candy or fruit or cloves are just killers in disguise. Their sweet taste doesn’t make them any safer, but it does attract younger non-smokers at an alarming rate. Once smokers take up the habit, it’s very difficult to break.

What also aren’t any safer or healthier are “light” cigarettes. A lot of smokers make the switch to light cigarettes thinking that it’s a first step towards becoming smoke-free. However, studies show that this doesn’t happen. Many do make the effort to stop smoking, but most are unsuccessful. The failure rate may have something to do with smokers mistakenly thinking that light cigarettes are better for them.


Because they think this way, they’re less motivated to stop and as a result, quitting altogether ceases to become a priority. Success resulting from a recent lawsuit gives the FDA the power to restrict sales of some tobacco products, regulate the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts, and even limit the amount of nicotine in some products. And that’s a good thing. We recently wrote an article about the Electronic Cigarette, but is this really any safer, we still dont know.

It’s a tough addiction to overcome

But even so, there’s no denying that cigarettes are highly addictive and anyone that says they’re not is lying. Once a person starts, it’s really difficult to cease. That’s not to say that people don’t stop. Many do, and never smoke again. But many more quit just temporarily, resuming the habit when the effects of nicotine withdrawal get too strong.

If you smoke, ask yourself whether it’s time to get serious about quitting.

Food Labeling Confusion

FDA Plans to End Food Labeling Confusion

Do you spend a lot of time in the grocery store? I do, especially now that dining out has gone from a regular indulgence to something my family does only occasionally. Since I’m spending more time cooking at home, I decided to take advantage of the situation by preparing healthier meals.

Eat better and save money

Sounds simple enough. Or so I thought. I started paying closer attention to the foods I was buying, taking extra time to review packaging claims while relying on my limited nutritional knowledge to help guide my choices. So imagine my surprise when I read on the package that things like Lunchables and Cocoa Puffs were “Smart Choices!” I snatched them up and couldn’t wait to get home and admit that all these years I was wrong for denying my family the foods they craved.

And that’s probably what the major players in the food industry had hoped would happen when they unveiled the Smart Choices program. You’ve probably seen it as you walked the grocery store aisles. It’s a noticeable green check mark designed to give time-pressed shoppers the go-ahead to make the purchase, without needing to turn the package over for a closer look at the more detailed Nutrition Facts and Ingredients labels.

Is Fruit Loops really a smart choice?

If I had taken time to look more closely, I would have stood firm on my previous decision to ban chocolaty breakfast cereals and high-sodium packaged lunches from my kitchen cabinets. Now all I’ve done is caused a lot of confusion about what constitutes a smart food choice.

Confusion abounds

Apparently I’m not the only one confused by this new labeling program created not by nutritionists, but by several of the big-name food companies; the manufacturers of the very same products bearing that supposedly helpful green check mark. I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was. Those companies say anything they can get away with to maintain sales even as childhood and adult obesity rates continue to soar.

And the F.D.A. is not happy about that. In an effort to end the confusion caused by food labeling programs like Smart Choice as well as food manufactures and the nutritional information they provide the general public, the F.D.A. is proposing new voluntary standards. These new standards would require mention on the front of the package not only of a food’s nutritional benefits, but also the not-so-good components like the per-serving saturated fat and sugar content and calories.

This information is already listed – in fairly small print – on a package’s back or side panel. Problem is, few people read it. Food marketers know this and that’s why they’ve started putting only the product’s good points, like “vitamin fortified” or “excellent source of fiber” on the front.

If the F.D.A. succeeds, they’ll also have to mention on the package front that their product offers a “full week’s worth of saturated fat” or “more sodium than a shaker full of salt.” And I don’t think any food manufacturer is willing to boast about that!

What do you think?

Bisphenol A - Your Friend?

The Love/Hate Relationship with Bisphenol A

BPA. Three little letters that play a dominant role in our everyday lives. Maybe you’re already familiar with Bisphenol A. But if you’re not, you will be after reading today’s blog.

What is Bisphenol A?

Bisphenol A is an industrial chemical, so as you’d expect, it’s controversial. The reason is because its presence is practically everywhere – water bottles, soda bottles, electric and electronic goods, DVDs, CDs, sports equipment, toys, packaging, tooth sealant, corrective lenses, automobile parts, those handy reusable containers – and anything else that’s made from polycarbonate plastic or epoxy resin.

Much of the things in our world are made using polycarbonate plastic. And it’s no wonder, since this material is lightweight yet tough, is clear like glass, and can resist high temperatures and shattering. Epoxy resin products are likewise prevalent in our society. They’re used in paint, circuit boards, metal canned food liners, and lots of things requiring a protective coating.

A long history of use and controversy

Bisphenol A has been in use for over 50 years, and a number of governmental agencies including the U.S. FDA, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, and other national and international agencies consider it safe.

The controversy surrounding BPA started a few years back when an article appeared claiming bottles made from BPA were not safe. This scare focused on water bottles, soda bottles, and baby bottles; things that many of us use practically every day.

Since then, a lot has happened. Several baby bottle manufacturers eliminated BPA from their production lines. One hundred plus studies have been undertaken and have linked or attempted to link BPA with all sorts of health issues including breast cancer, obesity, developmental problems, neurological problems, and more. Health officials have begun questioning the FDA’s guidelines and the scientific evidence used to derive those guidelines.


Those pushing for tighter regulation of BPA repeatedly point to the backing of one of the FDA’s studies on the safety of BPA: It was funded by the chemical industry. Even within the FDA, controversy surrounds BPA’s safety, especially among infants and children. Unable to escape the controversy, the FDA is now revisiting its stance on BPA.

But that isn’t stopping supporters of BPA. This side argues that to be any significant risk from exposure to BPA, an individual “would have to ingest more than 500 pounds of canned food and beverages every day for an entire lifetime.”

Supporters point to the decades of extensive study of BPA as proof that there is no need for alarm. They claim BPA is one of the most studied chemicals available today, and they stand by their belief that when used as directed, Bisphenol A is safe.

Which side should you believe?

That’s hard to say. But rather than take a side, you can make a choice. You can stop buying bottled beverages and drink from the tap or use a water filter. You can choose fresh or frozen vegetables rather than canned. You can breastfeed.

And the best choice of all? You can choose to learn more about Bisphenol A and draw your own conclusions regarding the safety issue.

The Dangers of Lasik Eye Surgery

FDA Taking a Closer Look at Lasik Eye Surgery

I wear contact lenses, and like others with impaired vision, I was really excited when I first heard about Lasik eye surgery. The thought of never again having to mess around with contact lenses or wear eye glasses definitely caught my attention. But the cost and the lack of long-term studies brought me back to reality and the daily chore of caring for contacts.

Now it seems that decision may have been a smart decision since the FDA recently announced plans to take a closer look at the negative effects of this popular eye surgery.

The way laser eye surgery corrects vision is really pretty amazing. A trained surgeon uses a specially-designed laser known as a Lasik laser to permanently reshape the cornea in one or both eyes. That’s really all there is to it.

After numbing the eye, a surgical knife is used to cut a thin circular flap in the cornea. Then the laser is pointed at the cornea. Under the surgeon’s command, the laser pulses and vaporizes corneal tissue until the shape needed to correct vision is obtained. When finished, the flap is put back into position so the eye can heal. In 95% of the procedures, the patient is able to see clearly in just a few days.

What about the remaining five percent?

Maybe it’s the relative simplicity that keeps patients from worrying about the procedure’s potential side effects. Before you can even get laser eye surgery, you have to be evaluated to determine whether you’re a good candidate. From there, the eye is mapped and the risks explained. An appointment is made and about 15 minutes after it starts, the procedure is finished.


But not every patient’s vision is better after laser eye surgery. While it may not seem like a lot, the FDA reports nearly 140 complaints over the course of 8 years beginning in 1998 through 2006. In general, these complaints involve the known risks including dry eyes, blurred or double vision, and at nighttime, the appearance of halos surrounding objects.

Study overview

The FDA study isn’t intended to put an end to the procedure. Rather, the goal is to better understand the risks, including the number of patients that experience them. That, officials believe, may lead to changes that could result in fewer patient-reported problems after surgery.

Phase 1, which is already underway, involves creating a web-based questionnaire intended to help assess the surgical outcomes patients report. Answers will also be used to help assess patients’ quality of life following Lasik eye surgery.

Phase 2 focuses on evaluating satisfaction levels and resulting quality of life issues of patients at the Naval Refractive Surgery Center.

The 3rd phase will broaden the quality of life evaluation by conducting a clinical study designed to track the outcome of patients that had the procedure performed at select centers. The study is expected to continue through 2012.

Until then, I think I’ll keep fumbling with my contact lenses and eye glasses. What about you?

The First Wave of Swine Flu

How Bad Was the First Wave of Swine Flu?

There’s a good chance the world may never know how many people were infected with the H1N1 virus during its “first wave.” That’s the period beginning in April, 2009 when words like “pandemic” and “global threat” were being used to describe this relatively unknown virus, and ending a few months later in July.

This seems hard to believe, especially in developed countries where medical record keeping is handled mainly by computers. But technology, or even a lack of it, isn’t the reason for the mystery behind these numbers. Instead, the reason stems from the numbers themselves. Even though thousands of people may have been exposed to the H1N1 virus during the first wave, researchers and experts can only base their reports on the number of laboratory-confirmed infections.

What experts are saying

Using a multiplier model, researchers now believe that the number of people stricken by the H1N1 virus could be as low as 1.8 million or as high as 5.7 million. That’s a huge range and it’s a far cry from the 400,000+ confirmed cases we’ve been hearing about!

But it gets worse. If the number of infected individuals is off by that much, experts suggest that the number of swine flu-related hospitalizations and deaths during the first wave may also have been underestimated.


How could the numbers be this far off?

If someone experienced symptoms but didn’t go to the doctor for testing, he or she may have had been infected by the virus without knowing it. If that person had the Swine Flu and didn’t know it, guess what? The CDC didn’t know it either and neither did the World Health Organization or any organization involved in monitoring public health.

There are other problems with the accuracy of the first wave numbers. Some collected specimens may not have been confirmed by a public health laboratory. Others may have been incorrectly collected or collected too late. Problems like these could have triggered negative results when it’s possible that more of those results should have been positive.

Should we be scared?

Word of the seriousness of the H1N1 virus has spread and now, even people with mild flu-like symptoms are visiting their doctors. They’re getting tested and that means the numbers for the second wave should be much more accurate.

But, those low first wave numbers could potentially cause problems going forward, especially if we find that the swine flu statistics were grossly underestimated.
Already we’re witnessing long lines for the newly-released swine flu vaccine, partly due to higher-than-expected demand but also the longer-than-usual amount of time it takes to produce the vaccine. School closures are common, and hospitalizations and deaths are on the rise.

PharmacyEscrow.com is ready to help

Our vast network of reputable pharmacies ensures speedy access to an ample supply of the recommended antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza. If you’re concerned about the H1N1 virus and how to best protect yourself, talk to your doctor.

*** In the past our suppliers have listed Relenza quite expensively due to the extremely limited supply available on the market from GlaxoSmithKline. Through a lot of hard work (and luck), we have now sourced Relenza from three different suppliers and are very happy to announce it is available for immediate shipment from only $99. ***

The Shortage of Children's Tamiflu

How Some Pharmacists Overcome the Shortage of Children's Tamiflu

If you don’t already know it, Tamiflu is one of two prescription antiviral medicines used to treat and prevent flu symptoms, including the H1N1 influenza. Available in adult and children’s dosages, Tamiflu is already being widely prescribed as this year’s flu season kicks into high gear sooner than many had anticipated. One group that’s getting hit particularly hard: Children.

A report produced by the CDC titled: Updated Interim Recommendations for the Use of Antiviral Medications in the Treatment and Prevention of Influenza for the 2009-2010 Season found that:

During April to August 2009 hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 influenza among children younger than 2 years old were 2.5 times higher than rates for children 2 year to 4 years old. Children 2 years to 4 years old had slightly (20%) higher rates of hospitalization compared with children 5 years to 17 years old. In studies of seasonal influenza, the risk for hospitalization is also highest for infants, with the risk decreasing as age increases.

Although antiviral drugs are not meant as a substitute for the flu vaccine, the CDC has approved its use in higher priority cases, including children. According to the FDA, Tamiflu is safe for use in children aged 1 year and older. Infants younger than 1 year can be prescribed Tamiflu as long as such use complies with the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization guidelines. And that’s good news since both the normal seasonal flu and the H1N1 flu are showing up in schools at alarming rates.

The bad news is that concern over preventing the spread of these viruses and timely treatment of symptoms once exposed has parents and caregivers running to their doctors for children’s Tamiflu prescriptions. Add to that the manufacturers’ decision to concentrate their production efforts on adult dosages that are easier and quicker to manufacture, and we’re now faced with a shortage of Tamiflu for children.

Pharmacists get creative

To keep up with demand, pharmacists are finding it necessary to be creative in filling children’s Tamiflu prescriptions.

Some pharmacists are taking adult-strength pills and compounding a dose suitable for children. This involves diluting a pill until it’s safe enough for a child and then mixing into a flavored liquid. The child’s weight determines a suitable dose.


To better protect infants that qualify for Tamiflu under the guidelines of the Emergency Use Authorization, many pharmacists prescribe the liquid form of Tamiflu. But special care must be taken when dispensing the liquid form.

Pharmacists must ensure that a proper measuring device is substituted since the one included from the manufacturer is not suitable for infants. If they don’t substitute the manufacturer’s dropper which measures in milligrams with a dropper that measures in teaspoons (the more common infant measurement), caregivers will find themselves having to figure out complicated unit measurement conversions. And that can lead to problems.

Rather not take a chance with your child?

We don’t blame you. That’s why we want to remind you that you can still get the real thing right here at PharmacyEscrow.com. Call us today to speak to one of qualified sales agents.

The Faces Were Scary

The Faces Were Scary, but the Face Paint Was Even Scarier!

Way back in history, strange things were happening to beautiful people and no one knew why. It took a while to figure out the cause of so many untimely deaths and problems such as irritability, infertility, madness, and skin issues. The culprit? Makeup.

Up until very recently, there were no corner drug stores or department store cosmetics counters. So men and women relied on the fruits of the earth to enhance their images. As long as they were doing things like using strawberries to color their lips, there weren’t any problems. But they also used ground up semi-precious stones and natural minerals like malachite and galena which, in case you don’t know it, are composed of lead, copper, ore and other metals.

Today we are very aware of the dangers associated with these metals, especially when ingested and, in the case of makeup, applied directly to the skin.

That’s why I was so surprised when I learned that some face paints sold this past Halloween season contained many of the same metals that in the past caused so many health issues and even death!

We’re living in the 21st century, aren’t we?

I wasn’t the only one surprised by the report compiled by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. According to the report, ten different brands of Halloween face paints targeted at children were sent to an independent lab. There the different face paints were tested for heavy metals.

All of them contained lead and just over half of the samples tested positive for nickel, cobalt, or chromium, all of which are known skin allergens. This is despite labeling on at least one of the products tested that claimed it was non-toxic and hypoallergenic.


Putting our children at risk

We tell our kids to be safe on Halloween by using flashlights, not eating unwrapped candy, and walking in groups. But we don’t tell them to be careful about what they put on their faces, which may actually be the biggest threat to their safety at Halloween or any time!

Lead can damage children’s developing brains, even at low levels of exposure. And exposing children to skin allergens can cause lifelong sensitization and contact dermatitis – an allergic reaction – on the face.

Here’s what surprises me even more

Don’t think that just because Halloween is over, so is the danger. Anytime your children apply face makeup when they play dress-up, or during theatrical performances, or even for no reason at all, the risks exist. Why? Because of lax laws and staffing shortages.

There currently aren’t any laws requiring ingredient labels on cosmetics or other personal care products to list lead, heavy metals or other contaminants. Because it lacks the authority, the FDA can’t require companies to assess the safety of their products or the ingredients in those products before coming onto market, either. The FDA is required to approve any color additives used in cosmetics, including face paint and theatrical makeup, so there is some oversight.

But that’s not enough for many parents, including me! Please let us know what you think...

U.S. and Canadian Drug Markets

As the United States government struggles to devise a better way to provide health care coverage to its citizens, comparisons to the Canadian-run system are common. What’s also common is the wide range of opinions offered by patients and physicians alike.

Depending on whom you believe, the Canadian government-run plan is either far superior to or far more limiting than the privately run U.S. system.

How can this be? And who should you believe? As the heated arguments rage on, both sides seem willing to agree on this: Neither system is perfect.

Today, we’ll take a closer look at one of the biggest dilemmas both U.S. and Canadian citizens face: Access to affordable prescription drugs.

Price regulation

The United States and Canada are two of the biggest pharmaceutical drug markets in the world. Unlike in the U.S., the Canadian government determines the price Canadians pay by regulating drug prices. While this helps “cap” drug prices, Canada’s numerous provincial drug benefits plans creates inconsistencies in drug benefits, drug prices, and drug coverage.

In the U.S., insurance companies and other large drug purchasers negotiate prices with drug manufacturers directly. Since the U.S. government does not regulate prescription drug pricing (except in certain government-run programs like Medicaid), the free market reigns, making drugs a very lucrative market. The driving force behind U.S. pricing strategy is maximizing profitability, which is why drugs in the U.S. cost so much more than they do in other industrialized countries like Canada.

In exchange for the higher price they pay though, U.S. citizens don’t get superior drugs. Aside from the occasional name change, the ingredients in same drugs purchased in the U.S. and in Canada are usually identical. Most often they’re manufactured at the same facilities in an effort to control manufacturing costs then distributed around the world.

It doesn’t take long for anyone searching the Internet to realize that purchasing drugs from non-U.S. dispensaries can save a considerable amount of money. Naturally, attempts to stop this practice are frequent, but so far, unsuccessful.


A Closer Look at the U.S. and Canadian Drug Markets
Use of generic brands

Another notable feature of the Canadian drug market is use of generic brands. Just over 50% of 2008 total drug sales in Canada were for generic drugs. Generic drugs come to market much more quickly than they do in the U.S. so Canadians have greater access to them.

Drug manufacturers aren’t allowed to saturate Canadian television advertising like they do in the U.S. so there isn’t the same demand for name-brand drugs. However, today’s tough economic climate is changing this, as U.S. citizens already struggling with higher costs for health care and basic necessities are switching to generics as a way to save money.

One similarity

Interestingly, there is one similarity in both drug markets that affects millions: Newer drugs and specialty drugs are still out of reach for many of the people that need them either because they lack insurance or because their insurance plans doesn’t cover 100% of the costs.

And that is a problem both governments need to fix.

Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

What Do You Think? Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

If you live in California or any of the other dozen states with laws allowing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, you could argue that marijuana already is legal. That’s because, whether you have one of the problems for which marijuana’s use is recommended or you don’t, you can obtain it legally simply by consulting with the “right” doctor.

And isn’t that the way it’s always been with marijuana and most other drugs, and really, anything in life? If you want something badly enough, eventually you find a way to get it. That’s what motivates us to work harder to achieve our goals.

The benefits of legalized marijuana

So the biggest benefit of legalizing marijuana seems to be eliminating the risk of getting “caught” buying or selling marijuana and suffering the associated consequences. But it has the potential to do something more, and that something more is getting the attention of state lawmakers everywhere.

If marijuana legalization is handled at the state level as opposed to the federal level, individual states will have total control over marijuana growing and distribution. Reading between the lines, this means that state governments may be in a position to profit – not just a little bit, but a lot – by taxing marijuana sales.
In addition to making money, states can potentially save quite a bit of money. With marijuana legalized, it’ll put an end to the millions of dollars spent each year arresting, processing, and trying individuals accused of distributing or possessing marijuana.

It would seem then that legalized marijuana might just be a state budget’s best chance at achieving balance. Or is it?

What are the downsides of a community that sustains itself by selling pot?

Legalization of marijuana for medicinal use has spawned an entire industry. Average citizens as well as university professors are teaching courses on how to cultivate marijuana and classes are filled to capacity. Young and old alike are becoming farmers, growing the maximum number of plants allowed. Suppliers provide growers with florescent lighting, containers, watering systems, soil enhancers, pruning gear, how-to manuals and more. Stay-at-home moms create and sell tasty treats that include marijuana on the ingredients label.


It seems everyone is getting in on the marijuana business, and profiting. Competition is strong, and innovation is applauded. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But what happens if this very lucrative business model collapses?
As with everything, with the good comes some bad.

Violent crime is on the rise in areas with medicinal marijuana dispensaries, turning once-safe neighborhoods into battle grounds. The prevalence of the product makes it hard for children and adults to “Just Say No.” And you don’t just light up a pipe and smoke marijuana anymore. Now synthetic marijuana is available in pill form, and work is underway to develop better and faster-acting delivery methods. The marijuana available today tends to be more potent, too.

The jury’s still out

As it has been for decades, marijuana legalization will continue to be a very hotly debated topic. Do you smoke or know someone that smokes the fine green herb? Tell us what you think about marijuana legalization.