TheDogPlace - Home > Library >> BAD MEDICINE

 Adverse Reactions Site Makes Washington Post's Front Page

Excerpts are from the FRONT PAGE of the Washington Post, May 12, 2006

Our heartfelt congratulations to “Laurryn” and the unremitting dissemination of drug-related risks to dogs and their families. There are many ways dog people can “feel good” about helping dogs.  Choose carefully and spend your time and resources wisely.  We have eagerly helped groups and individuals like Laurryn and will continue to do so.  YOU help www.TheDogPlace.org  maintain one of the most extensive “DogCare” Resource Libraries in the world which allows us to follow the extraordinary accomplishments of DogsAdverseReactions.  We are as thrilled over this media milestone as is Laurryn.  She and other sincerely motivated dog owners have proven one person can “move mountains.”

One of the most significant ways you can this insure national news momentum does not wane is to drop a quick email expressing your gratitude to the Washington Post for informing thousands more people through the Marc Kaufman “Dog Drugs” story.  Click here national@washpost.com  and while you’re at it, cc your post to the Health Editor section at health@washpost.com Trust me, it makes a huge difference and will insure more national media coverage.  It costs you nothing, just two minutes.  Do it.
 
Then go to http://www.dogsadversereactions.com and see what you can do to help and to become more informed. 
 
Here are the high points of Mr. Kaufman’s article entitled:

Vioxx Debate Echoed in Battle Over Dog Drugs

By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer

    (Vioxx) came on the market four years ago after being tested in a healthy, young population, although it was intended for use by the old and sick.”  He points out “the manufacturer aggressively advertised it” then appropriately relates those problems to the veterinary drug Deramaxx. 

    (Deramaxx is) “An anti-inflammatory closely related to the human painkiller Vioxx, which was taken off the market in 2004 and is now the subject of thousands of lawsuits against Merck & Co., Deramaxx has helped relieve many canine aches and pains. But in an echo of the national debate over the dangerous side effects of some popular human drugs, Deramaxx has also proved at times to be deadly.” 
 
    And that is has!  Kaufman provides interesting background and then continues  “Deramaxx is not the only drug to run into trouble in the burgeoning world of animal medicine. The widely used ProHeart 6 heartworm treatment was the subject of controversy several years ago and was withdrawn from the market in 2004 following reports that healthy dogs were becoming sick and dying after getting a shot of the preventive medicine.”

      He provides the following “In 1999, 300 pet owners filed a lawsuit against Pfizer Inc., alleging that its early dog arthritis medicine Rimadyl had seriously harmed their pets. Pfizer settled in 2003, saying it had done nothing wrong but wanted to avoid costly litigation. Each plaintiff was given $1,000.” 
 
      Kaufman goes on to provide yet another example “The ProHeart 6 case also led to allegations that its manufacturer, Wyeth, had sought to discredit the FDA official overseeing the investigation - a pattern seen with FDA officials who questioned the safety of human drugs.”

    We covered the story of Dr. Hampshire, the FDA official who concluded that ProHeart 6, a heartworm drug was not safe and contributed to well over 500 canine deaths.  So does Kaufman who then goes on to “This is really the same thing we saw with dangerous drugs being given to people, but maybe even more unfair because pet owners had no idea these pills could be so harmful,” said Herman, who two years ago helped start a Web site dedicated to reporting on adverse drug reactions in dogs - www.dogsadversereactions.com  - after his miniature schnauzer died after being given Deramaxx. “

    The Post story gives fair treatment to the drug companies, quoting from statements and interviews but the bottom line is contained in this quote “FDA’s Hampshire, who worked on the Deramaxx and ProHeart 6 cases before losing her position last year, said, “Whatever problems we face with drugs in the human world are magnified in the animal world. There’s no pharmacist involved, and so there’s no monitoring of prescriptions. And, of course, the patient can’t talk and tell you he doesn’t feel right.”

     In summary, Kaufman observes “many veterinarians resist efforts to force them to share drug information sheets - provided by the companies and endorsed by the FDA - with pet owners. Elizabeth Curry-Galvin, interim director of the scientific activities division of the American Veterinary Medical Association, said vets are trained to discuss possible drug side effects with pet owners, and her organization thinks most do so. She said the association opposes efforts to require vets to give out the drugmakers’ information because “it’s just not the be-all and end-all of the communication that’s needed.”

    It is a much-needed public information article.  We have just touched on the high points, click the following Washington Post link to read the full story.
 
http://daily.washpost.com/Repository/ml.asp?Issue=WPost/2006/05/12&ID=Ar00105&Mo\de=HTML  
 
Don’t forget to email the Post and visit Laurryn’s website to see how you can help.

related links: Drug Company Threats     Prescription Inserts     Heartgard Failed        Adverse Reactions 

Recalls: Pro Heart 6 and Rimadyl Settles