Millions of diabetics are about to take a huge gamble, a roll of the dice that could end in death by a particularly horrible disease.
You’d think the FDA would be trying to protect them from that risk — but they’re the ones rolling the dice, signing off on a generic version of the diabetes drug Actos to make it available to millions of new patients.
Many of them will make the switch simply because it’s newer — and newer drugs are better, right? (more…)
Bladder cancer has had its share of headlines recently. Not because the public is uninformed about the disease or because scientists discovered a new wonder drug targeting bladder cancer cells. Rather, the disease keeps on reappearing under the adverse side effects category for one diabetes drug — Actos.
We all know that diabetes has its own sets of health challenges, and to be bombarded by studies confirming a diabetes drug’s bladder cancer risk brings chills to type 2 patients and their families. (more…)
You could take vitamin D and achieve a desirable blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml), or you could:
–Take Actos to mimic the enhanced insulin sensitivity generated by vitamin D
–Take lisinopril to mimic the angiotensin-converting enzyme blocking, antihypertensive effect of vitamin D
–Take Fosamax or Boniva to mimic the bone density-increasing effect of vitamin D
–Take Celexa or other SSRI antidepressants to mimic the mood-elevating and winter “blues”-relieving effect of vitamin D
—Take Niaspan to mimic the HDL-increasing, small LDL-reducing effect of vitamin D
–Take naproxen to mimic the pain-relieving effect of vitamin D (more…)
Is no news really good news?
Last September, the FDA pledged to review Actos, the big-name diabetes drug that has been linked to bladder cancer. This was after the go-to diabetes pill, Avandia, came under fire for its link to serious heart problems.
Everyone figured, with a line drawn between Avandia and heart problems, patients should be on something else. And Actos seemed like it was a prime candidate to fill the big hole left by Avandia.
Except for that long-term study linking it to bladder cancer. Not to mention the fact that it, like Avandia, sported a warning for ties to heart problems.
So, at that point, there was more confusion than ever–for doctors and patients alike. (more…)
I hate to say I told you so. But every time I come down tough on drugs, it turns out they really deserve it.
Take for example, the diabetes drug Actos. A few weeks back, I slammed Actos, despite new research (covered in TIME and The New York Times) that it decreases your risk of developing diabetes.
Turns out, I should have come down harder on that darned drug.
In fact, this week researchers published a report that found an association between Actos and a certain form of cancer. Plus, this isn’t the first study to uncover a link between Actos and increased cancer risk.
I’ll give you all the grisly details in a moment. But first, let’s back up a few months…
Proof that mainstream reporters eat whatever’s fed to them (more…)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions–and nowhere is that more true than in charities.
You may have the best of intentions when you give your hard-earned money to a charity that claims to be dedicated to fighting a disease… but some of those organizations will put your money to work on a massive superhighway right to you-know-where.
That’s because many of those groups work so closely with Big Pharma they’re practically arms of the drug industry themselves.
Just take a look at the American Diabetes Association. (more…)
Last month, The New York Times and TIME magazine both ran articles that reported on new research for a diabetes drug called Actos (pioglitazone). According to the new research, men and women with elevated blood sugar levels who took Actos were less likely to develop diabetes than a placebo group.
You can make the case that the reporters wrote balanced arguments. In fact, both reporters raised concerns about giving a diabetes drug to patients without full-blown diabetes. Plus, both reporters warned you about the drug’s very serious side effects.
But there’s one major problem with both articles: They fail to point out a key flaw in the new research. In fact, the results of this study are so shaky, TIME and The NYT had no business giving it any ink. (You’ll learn exactly why the results are so shaky in a moment, I promise!) (more…)