Posted by kelv on April 7, 2007, at 7:25:35
In reply to Re: New drugs that the FDA are studying and may ap, posted by Squiggles on April 7, 2007, at 6:52:13
> "So much money, work and bureaucracy, and yet they rarely come up with anything that hasn't been a clone for the past 25 years",
So true-Prozac comes to mind as a breakthrough, Xanax and other Triazolobenzodiazepines perhaps also, These were simply not different Elavil or Valium, Imipramine.
"or a quality that doesn't have dubious advantages. The no-addiction property sounds like a backfire, as rarely do sedatives work if they are not a little bit addicting".
Agreed to some extent, Ambien is approved for longer term use, it's not a benzo but works like one.
> "Why are the old drugs so good in comparison to the new ones?"Because they were so heavy hitting and hammer like in their effects. Barbiturates, Meprobamate, the wide range of Meth/Amphetamines in Higher SR doses, and liquid forms, and combos of both, ie Dexamyl, Desbutal, Opium deritives, including Dilaudid, Oxymorphone dispensed for a wide range of ills.
These meds were considered part of medicine until it was realised they were being widely sold on the streets as 'uppers' and 'downers for hedonistic use."What has happened to scientific research? And why are there so *many* drugs of the same class on the market?"
Money caused big pharma to put more time into releasing copycat 'me too' pills to compete, while scientific research took a back seat.
>
poster:kelv
thread:747760
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070407/msgs/747798.html