Posted by Squiggles on April 7, 2007, at 8:18:44
In reply to Re: New drugs that the FDA are studying and may ap » Squiggles, posted by kelv on April 7, 2007, at 7:25:35
> > "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.
> >
>
>If there are statistical records of "improvement" in psychiatric conditions with the newer drugs, like Prozac, i would love to see them. There has to be some explicit justification for such a proliferation of SO many drugs-- not just psychiatric ones; maybe you know of where to look?
Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:747760
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070407/msgs/747801.html