You didn't hear about the Prescrip.Drugs are Unsafe Report? Not Surprised.

[Robbien]

Tucked way back in the health section of the NYT a couple of days ago there was an article releasing the findings of the Institute of Medicine:

The report made these recommendations, most of which would require Congressional authorization:

¶Newly approved drugs should display a black triangle on their labels for two years to warn consumers that their safety is more uncertain than that of older drugs.

¶Drug advertisements should be restricted during this initial period.

¶The F.D.A. should be given the authority to issue fines, injunctions and withdrawals when drug makers fail — as they often do — to complete required safety studies.

¶The F.D.A. should thoroughly review the safety of drugs at least once every five years.

¶The F.D.A. commissioner should be appointed to a six-year term.

¶Drug makers should be required to post publicly the results of nearly all human drug trials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

New drugs to be labeled with a triangle which would be like putting a skull and bones label on new drugs? Drug companies have to do pre-release drug trials? Drug companies have to monitor safety? The FDA is to be supervised? And most of all, Drug companies cannot advertise?

Is there any wonder you may not have heard of this report.

[KingFlorez]

1. The news we need to here always gets buried

[mcscajun]

2. No, I hadn't heard of it, and you're not, it's not terribly surprising.

At least one M.D. of my acquaintance will not prescribe pharmaceuticals that are That New, as he doesn't trust anything without a track record. Smart man.