They Can Cure That Now!

Madeline

Rookie
Apr 20, 2010
18,505
1,866
0
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
There are some questionable/ridiculous medical conditions modern chemistry can now cure.

Eyelash hypotrichosis is the name for having inadequate (blond) or not enough eyelashes. Sounds terrible huh? Been struggling to make do with mere mascara?

Might want to try eyelash extensions...false eyelashes...or tinting your eyelashes. But if the condition persists, you can now choose Latisse, a new drug from ALLERGAN. That is, if the risks of eye redness, eyelid skin darkening, increased brown iris pigmentation and blindness don't scare you off.

I wonder how much of a tax deduction ALLERGAN got for its research into this horrible medical condition.

 
One of these days, you're gonna be paying for someone else's treatment for this horrific disfigurement... because that's where the healthcare bill will take us.

Congratulations for voting for that imbecile. Please don't bitch when you get screwed.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Alas for the All Bad Things Are Obama's Fault School of Political Discourse, Latisse was approved for sale by the FDA during Bush's administration.

FDA OKs 1st Eyelash Drug Latisse

But hold fast. I'm sure they've been busily approving other equally "valuable" drugs since Obama took office and we can then bootstrap the Entire FDA Problem onto him.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Did you duck? Cuz the point went over your head.

I'm a duck and even I noticed that

Pardon me CailforniaGirl, my mistake. I shall indeed be underwriting the cost of this ridiculous and dangerous drug when it is dispensed to all the afflicted blond-eyelashed people here.

Mea culpa.

(Still got approved on Bush's watch. Fucking FDA is a disgrace.)

 
Well, the nature of pharmaceutical companies is that they try to develop drugs for serious diseases, and when the drug fails to work on that, they look at alternate indications that it could be useful for and be marketed for, to recoup the money they put into it. I don't know much about this new drug, but likely it was the same thing.

I know for ED drugs like Viagra, it was developed for cardiovascular disease but didn't work for its intended indication, and they found another way to market it.
Same with Rogaine, it was used to treat an untreatable, rare disorder, but found out a bad side effect was excessive hair growth, so they took advantage of that. Good business

Plus, looks like this company is a "specialty" pharmaceutical company, finding a niche to market products. There are still tons of other companies out there looking for cures for more serious diseases and problems
 
Why is the FDA a disgrace over this? Someone submitted an IND, and they reviewed the product and deemed it worked for its target indication and was safe based on the clinical trials.

Why blame this on the FDA? And what do presidents have to do with the FDA?
 
Well, the nature of pharmaceutical companies is that they try to develop drugs for serious diseases, and when the drug fails to work on that, they look at alternate indications that it could be useful for and be marketed for, to recoup the money they put into it. I don't know much about this new drug, but likely it was the same thing.

I know for ED drugs like Viagra, it was developed for cardiovascular disease but didn't work for its intended indication, and they found another way to market it.
Same with Rogaine, it was used to treat an untreatable, rare disorder, but found out a bad side effect was excessive hair growth, so they took advantage of that. Good business

Plus, looks like this company is a "specialty" pharmaceutical company, finding a niche to market products. There are still tons of other companies out there looking for cures for more serious diseases and problems

Yes, of course Dr. Gregg....I don't deny that. Most medical researchers struggle to end AIDS, diabetes, cancer heart disease, etc. And I can see where a drug like Latisse could have been accidentially discovered.

But c'mon now. Who submitted it for approval for use in treating the dread "disease" blond eyelashes, in spite of its risk of, among other things, blindness?

Who enjoyed tax deductions you and I can only dream of for the R & D costs associated with this new wonder drug?

Who hired a Hollywood actress and built a slick TV ad campaign to persuade women that blond eyelashes are a disease and they have the cure?

In fact, whose trade association came up with the bright idea to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers in the first place?

Who applied for, won and profits from the patent on Latisse?

Who set the price of Latisse at $120 a month or more? Do you really believe it costs ALLERGAN $100 to manufacture that much? Or even $50?

When is it Just Too Much Greed????

 
Anyone who worries about their eyelashes enough to spend $120 per month needs pyschiactric treatment.
and the biggest scandal of all is Obamacare will not cover eyelash drugs! :eek:
 
Last edited:
It's for those with blond eyelashes? Brooke Shields is the spokeswoman for Latisse and she's no blond.


Yes, Zoom-boing. Shields is a brunette and has dark eyelashes. Now every woman with blonde, red, or gray hair and blond, red or gray eyelashes can have this "disease" cured, if she doesn't mind risking going blind to do it. That is, the drug changes the color of the eyelashes to dark brown. Sometimes.
 
Anyone who worries about their eyelashes enough to spend $120 per month needs pyschiactric treatment.
and the biggest scandal of all is Obamacare will not cover eyelash drugs! :eek:

Not so sure myself, uscitizen. Medicare, etc. reimburses for prescription drugs that are listed on a formulary -- a list of prescription drugs eligible to be prescribed to patients and reimbursed by Part D or whatnot. I'd be willing to bet the house some lobbyist -- or a team of lobbyists -- is busy now, working their contacts in Congress to get ALLERGAN's new brainchild included on that list.

Big Pharma is an extreme sports player in American politics...that's why we pay so much more for drugs than Canadians do.
 
For $7.99 this can cure it too!


adrianamaybelline.jpg
 
It's for those with blond eyelashes? Brooke Shields is the spokeswoman for Latisse and she's no blond.


Yes, Zoom-boing. Shields is a brunette and has dark eyelashes. Now every woman with blonde, red, or gray hair and blond, red or gray eyelashes can have this "disease" cured, if she doesn't mind risking going blind to do it. That is, the drug changes the color of the eyelashes to dark brown. Sometimes.

Heard it can change the color of your eyes to brown as well.

I'm fair-skinned with light (not blond) eyelashes and I wouldn't use this if it was free.

What the heck is wrong with just using mascara? Yeah, like that's hard. :rolleyes:
 
Why is the FDA a disgrace over this? Someone submitted an IND, and they reviewed the product and deemed it worked for its target indication and was safe based on the clinical trials.

Why blame this on the FDA? And what do presidents have to do with the FDA?

The FDA is a federal agency. Presidents appoint the HHS chief and he or she appoints the FDA chief. The buck stops with President him or her.

I'm not a scientist, Dr. Greg but I have friends who are personal injury lawyers. Shall we consider all the major whoopsies in recent American pharmacological history? Here are just the ones which gave rise to class action lawsuits:

Drug Lawsuits - Prescription Drug Injuries

That does not consider all the phoney FDA approvals for "off-label" use. How many psychotropic drugs are even tested for efficiacy and safety on psychiatric patients anymore? They all seem to be approved for epilepsy.

What about the cost-benefit analysis? Am I supposed to think some scientist at the FDA studied the risks of suicide from Chantix and approved it anyway -- to be used to stop cigarette smoking? Really? Better dead than socially undesirable?

Or the approval of drugs for use on adults without adequate testing and restrictions on their use for children? I may not be a scientific genius but I know things like body mass and hormone levels affect a drug's interaction with the human body.

It may be some solace that personal injury lawyers strike (some) fear in the hearts of Big Pharma and chill ever-more reckless drugs from being introduced, but these lawyers come along after the death, maiming, etc. have occurred. Money can never make the patients and their families whole.

I can go on (and on and on....) but you get my point. I grew up in an era when scientists sweated the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine because it might hurt a patient. I'm angry that, in the 21st century, I find myself living with an FDA/Big Pharma attitude that seems to be:

Will there be profit from that? If so, what're a few dead patients?


 
Well, the nature of pharmaceutical companies is that they try to develop drugs for serious diseases, and when the drug fails to work on that, they look at alternate indications that it could be useful for and be marketed for, to recoup the money they put into it. I don't know much about this new drug, but likely it was the same thing.

I know for ED drugs like Viagra, it was developed for cardiovascular disease but didn't work for its intended indication, and they found another way to market it.
Same with Rogaine, it was used to treat an untreatable, rare disorder, but found out a bad side effect was excessive hair growth, so they took advantage of that. Good business

Plus, looks like this company is a "specialty" pharmaceutical company, finding a niche to market products. There are still tons of other companies out there looking for cures for more serious diseases and problems

Yes, of course Dr. Gregg....I don't deny that. Most medical researchers struggle to end AIDS, diabetes, cancer heart disease, etc. And I can see where a drug like Latisse could have been accidentially discovered.

But c'mon now. Who submitted it for approval for use in treating the dread "disease" blond eyelashes, in spite of its risk of, among other things, blindness?

Who enjoyed tax deductions you and I can only dream of for the R & D costs associated with this new wonder drug?

Who hired a Hollywood actress and built a slick TV ad campaign to persuade women that blond eyelashes are a disease and they have the cure?

In fact, whose trade association came up with the bright idea to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers in the first place?

Who applied for, won and profits from the patent on Latisse?

Who set the price of Latisse at $120 a month or more? Do you really believe it costs ALLERGAN $100 to manufacture that much? Or even $50?

When is it Just Too Much Greed????


NO they likely spent millions in R&D and even more on clinical trials, people seem to forget about these high costs, and if the product only has a small market, the price has to be even more to make a profit. Are all companies greedy, or just pharmaceutical companies?

And the treatment is for people who lose their eyelashes during chemo or other treatments. If its so stupid, people wouldn't buy it, but obviously they determined they can market this and make money. It probably costs that much because there isn't a huge amount of people the require it, and their patent protection likely is not that long since so much time was hung up on R&D and clinical trials, so they set the price to attempt to make money off of it.
 
Why is the FDA a disgrace over this? Someone submitted an IND, and they reviewed the product and deemed it worked for its target indication and was safe based on the clinical trials.

Why blame this on the FDA? And what do presidents have to do with the FDA?

The FDA is a federal agency. Presidents appoint the HHS chief and he or she appoints the FDA chief. The buck stops with President him or her.

I'm not a scientist, Dr. Greg but I have friends who are personal injury lawyers. Shall we consider all the major whoopsies in recent American pharmacological history? Here are just the ones which gave rise to class action lawsuits:

Drug Lawsuits - Prescription Drug Injuries

That does not consider all the phoney FDA approvals for "off-label" use. How many psychotropic drugs are even tested for efficiacy and safety on psychiatric patients anymore? They all seem to be approved for epilepsy.

What about the cost-benefit analysis? Am I supposed to think some scientist at the FDA studied the risks of suicide from Chantix and approved it anyway -- to be used to stop cigarette smoking? Really? Better dead than socially undesirable?

Or the approval of drugs for use on adults without adequate testing and restrictions on their use for children? I may not be a scientific genius but I know things like body mass and hormone levels affect a drug's interaction with the human body.

It may be some solace that personal injury lawyers strike (some) fear in the hearts of Big Pharma and chill ever-more reckless drugs from being introduced, but these lawyers come along after the death, maiming, etc. have occurred. Money can never make the patients and their families whole.

I can go on (and on and on....) but you get my point. I grew up in an era when scientists sweated the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine because it might hurt a patient. I'm angry that, in the 21st century, I find myself living with an FDA/Big Pharma attitude that seems to be:

Will there be profit from that? If so, what're a few dead patients?





Nothing reckless about it, you just don't know the nature of pharmaceuticals. THey spend so much money testing the products, and the FDA reviews them extensively, and this is the major cost of drug development. On average, it costs 500 million to a billion dollars to develop a drug, and nearly 10 years after getting patent approval, when the drug goes to market. in one you complain its too expensive, then next you seem to suggest there be more regulation

,Everybody has different genetics, diets, preexisting conditions,environments, etc, so everybody reacts differently to drugs, no matter how extensively you test them, a tiny percentage will always have adverse reactions, hence the potential side effects you hear about. Even over the counter drugs and foods can have side effects in people. Millions of people used Vioxx, and 2% had the bad side effects, and they pulled the drug even though so many benefitted, and the public overreacts because they are ignorant about pharmaceuticals and biology and medicine in general. Would you prefer no drugs at all? Or even more highly priced drugs so investors can recoup the large amount of money they put into R and D, which is very very risky, with a high rate of drugs failing in development

Are there stories of a few companies out of the many out there of not being honest with their research? Yes, and those companies pay the price. But to make it like all of the drug companies are evil and scamming people is just pure ignorance.
 
Pure ignorance with your "phony claims' when you don't know anything about the process. Another layperson thinking they know more than highly trained and experience professionals.

Blaming any president for what every single organization in the government is just stupid, they don't influence every single organization. ANd there is nothing wrong with the FDA, there is no conspiracy, just scientists and doctors reviewing the clinical trial data with intense scrutiny. The nature of drugs and the many different interactions with many different people, who may take other medications or supplements to react with it is why there can be side effects. FDA does a pretty good job of making sure drugs are as safe as possible, but nothing in life is perfect.

Really tiring to hear people who don't know anything about the process, thinking they know best. just find some website that blasts the FDA and pharm companies and take that as the truth
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top