"Canadian Kept in the Dark About Defective Drugs"

[cybercoma]

I wish I had more time to write up some more thoughts on the issue, but this is a big deal and I wanted to get the post out there. Story broke yesterday.

Since Canada pharmaceutical companies sell to the US, they're also under the FDA. The Star had to go through the FDA to find records of problems with Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers that included (copied from the article):

Hidden, altered and in some cases destroyed test data that showed their products were tainted or potentially unsafe.

Not reported evidence of side-effects suffered by consumers taking their drugs.

In June, at a facility in Bangalore, India, that makes drugs destined for North America, Apotex employees did not report undesirable test results and doctored bacterial growth test records.

Generic drug maker Taro Pharmaceuticals of Brampton kept drugs on the market despite company tests showing batches of the medications deteriorated before the expiry date listed on the label.

Cangene Corp., a Winnipeg drug manufacturer, failed to tell authorities of blood clots, fever and other side-effects associated with their products.

There have been at least 19 Apotex inspections by the FDA since 2008, 16 of them resulting in findings termed “objectionable” or noted as “repeated deficiencies.” In one case, the FDA said the company failed to uphold “its legal obligation.”

The article goes on and on about the problems. It's well worth reading here: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/11/canadians_kept_in_dark_about_defective_drugs.html

Now the inevitable question that's going to come up is whether or not the FDA can be trusted. We know that big pharmaceutical companies in the US take exception to more affordable Canadian pharmaceuticals flooding into the US. We also have seen how these sorts of government agencies are in the pockets of big business (just look at Comcast and the situation with the FCC). Are these legitimate problems with these companies? If so we need to be very concerned. Or is this just another example of US businesses using their government to protect their markets?

Edited September 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Why didn't the Star just go to the HPFB ? Can't it be trusted ?

[Shady]

"potentially unsafe."

That's an interesting term.

[waldo]

"potentially unsafe." That's an interesting term.

at large, of the drugs referenced, negative side effects mentioned may or may not be experienced by everyone. Ergo, the drugs referenced are "potentially unsafe" to some persons. Why is that, as you say, an interesting term?

[Shady]

at large, of the drugs referenced, negative side effects mentioned may or may not be experienced by everyone. Ergo, the drugs referenced are "potentially unsafe" to some persons. Why is that, as you say, an interesting term?

Because it's pretty ambiguous. The sushi I ate last night could have been potentially unsafe.

[waldo]

Because it's pretty ambiguous. The sushi I ate last night could have been potentially unsafe.

no - not ambiguous in the context supplied... negative side effects resulting from a drug impact that may potentially affect certain people.

[Shady]

no - not ambiguous in the context supplied... negative side effects resulting from a drug impact that may potentially affect certain people.

Which certain people?

[GostHacked]

Ever read the side effects claims on some of these pharmaceuticals?

[cybercoma]

Which certain people?

Are you really asking someone to explain how pharmaceutical side effects work?