Not exactly. But, FDA studies are 12 weeks LONG. WE are the guinea pigs for all new medications going to market in any type of long term fashion. That's actually why the FDA has a site to report side effects, and will sometimes yank a drug if too many people die.
I also read a book by a dude who made his living via clinical trials. It was an interesting read, for sure. They'd "isolate" you from the pool tables and TV and other patients if you had "side effects" and questioning would go like this, "Any side effects?"
"I have a headache."
"How bad is it, is it really that bad?"
"Continued talk and questions trying to minimize reporting of side effects etc." It's really not a good system at all.
There are also many drugs that get to "Human patient 0" who immediately dies, the whole thing is hushed up and paid off and etc. My dad told me about that and I believe him. But, someone has to be "Human Patient 0" and they are paid well (good if it works not so good if it doesn't.)
WE are the guinea pigs for about the first 20 years or so as to long term data. I always go with something that's been around for a long time if I possibly can, and certain drugs I WILL not take like statins (besides which bile sequestrants work just as well, and the side effects aren't crippling). I also see more data about cholesterol "numbers" not being quite as predictive as first noted.
I mean look at "hormone replacement" during menopause. There was a non-causal effect meaning the women who took hormones appeared to live longer, but it was generally because they tended to take better care of themselves. Once they figured out that this was the effect, and hormones actually INCREASED the risk of stroke and heart attack, that news traveled pretty quickly....
So yes, WE are the real guinea pigs with many, many medicines. It sucks, but that's the system here...
Anna
I also read a book by a dude who made his living via clinical trials. It was an interesting read, for sure. They'd "isolate" you from the pool tables and TV and other patients if you had "side effects" and questioning would go like this, "Any side effects?"
"I have a headache."
"How bad is it, is it really that bad?"
"Continued talk and questions trying to minimize reporting of side effects etc." It's really not a good system at all.
There are also many drugs that get to "Human patient 0" who immediately dies, the whole thing is hushed up and paid off and etc. My dad told me about that and I believe him. But, someone has to be "Human Patient 0" and they are paid well (good if it works not so good if it doesn't.)
WE are the guinea pigs for about the first 20 years or so as to long term data. I always go with something that's been around for a long time if I possibly can, and certain drugs I WILL not take like statins (besides which bile sequestrants work just as well, and the side effects aren't crippling). I also see more data about cholesterol "numbers" not being quite as predictive as first noted.
I mean look at "hormone replacement" during menopause. There was a non-causal effect meaning the women who took hormones appeared to live longer, but it was generally because they tended to take better care of themselves. Once they figured out that this was the effect, and hormones actually INCREASED the risk of stroke and heart attack, that news traveled pretty quickly....
So yes, WE are the real guinea pigs with many, many medicines. It sucks, but that's the system here...
Anna