Why? To make profits while they can and to take the risk that adverse affects would not escalate past the threshold of deniability.
RT @rick_pittman: "Why did it take 4 years for the increased risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events to emerge?...FDA and ...Health C…
@samueldamon55 @nilikm @NightShiftMD Canada once pulled a selective Cox-2 inhibitor off the market because it caused heart damage among other conditions. It seems our risk tolerance is much higher now with an experimental gene Tx. Or maybe we have just
@CNBC The fda has approved a lot of bad drugs https://t.co/H8TnHpER2X
@ABC The FDA has approved alot of bad drugs https://t.co/H8TnHpER2X
https://t.co/H8TnHpER2X FDA has approved a lot of horrible drugs
Still think they won't lie to you?
Despite evidence #Vioxx was approved. https://t.co/jw3h6yIDvq
@heavypettingz0o @TheoFleury14 Inspection here doesn't always mean a safe drug. https://t.co/y3S8p8iNh0
@OnsideWithJouni @TheoFleury14 Saying they test everything, means nothing. " It has now become clear that both the FDA and (by inference) Health Canada were aware of the increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events long before the drug was withdrawn fr
@NotGbo @WIRED Vioxx was eventually looked into but it took them too long and many people died. https://t.co/47662YMEBi
“Both the FDA and Health Canada put their emphasis and resources into assessing drug benefits, not harms.” Akin to vaccine approvals. .@ImmunizedotCa #vaccineinjuryisnotsorare .@parentsmagazine .@Todaysparent https://t.co/IeySEut5HB
“has now become clear that both FDA & (by inference) Health Canada were aware of increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events long before the drug was withdrawn from the market.” .@Todaysparent .@parentsmagazine .@CPHO_Canada https://t.co/Iey
@WendyOrent @TwoOneSix216 The party is anti-corporate interference in regulatory bodies. A very serious problem: https://t.co/zuK6Az8Ujp
Along the same lines of gov't bodies not looking out for citizens' health, even w/ the facts: VIOXX. http://t.co/b8IYeroxEO