Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-it-doesn't-work-why-is-it-popular dept.

Back before methamphetamine cooks started buying up non-prescription decongestants to brew crank, all of us were able to buy effective decongestants right off the store shelf without a problem. Now David DiSalvo writes at Forbes that to fill the store-shelf void, drug companies substituted the already-FDA approved ingredient phenylephrine for pseudoephedrine but the oral decongestant phenylephrine simply doesn't work at the FDA-approved amount found in popular non-prescription brands, and it may not even work at much higher doses.

Researchers at the University of Florida are asking the FDA to remove oral phenylephrine from the market. "We think the evidence supports that phenylephrine's status as a safe and effective over-the-counter product should be changed," says Randy Hatton. "We are looking out for the consumer, and he or she needs to know that science says that oral phenylephrine does not work for the majority of people."

In 1976, the FDA deemed a 10 milligram oral dose of phenylephrine safe and effective at relieving congestion, making it possible for companies to use the ingredient without conducting studies. But Leslie Hendeles and Hatton say phenylephrine does not effectively relieve nasal stuffiness at this dose. They say the FDA cited four tests demonstrating efficacy at the 10 milligram dose, two of which were unpublished and sponsored by drug manufacturers. In contrast, the FDA cited six tests demonstrating no significant difference between phenylephrine and placebo. Hendeles said a higher dose may work, but no research has been published regarding safety at higher doses. "They need to do a dose-response study to determine at what higher dose they get both efficacy and safety," says Hendeles adding that until then "consumers should go that extra step and get it (pseudoephedrine) from behind the counter."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:02PM (#255118)

    "consumers should go that extra step and get it (pseudoephedrine) from behind the counter."

    uhh, screw you, you authoritarian #$$%. Why can't grownups in a supposedly free country buy what the $%^ they want?

    you have to get a note from the legal drug dealers, like a slave.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:19PM (#255126)

    Fight the Man, dude! We're, like, TOTALLY impressed by your rebel nature.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:26PM

    by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:26PM (#255133)

    Because most of the time the people arguing for more freedom with respect to toxic substances, those are the people who most need to be old no. If the folks wanting more freedom wouldn't do such a shitty job of considering the consequences for other people, it wouldn't be an issue.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:06PM (#255153)

      You mean a toxic substance like a nasal decongestant that works? You're a total dumbass. I venture you also never had any frequent congestion problems or allergies, so that would make you an example of people who *aren't affected* deciding to ban the substance because it's no skin off your nose, so screw them.

      Banning or restricting pseudoephedrine is nothing more than a show on the part of the politicians to say they are doing something about the meth problem. Meanwhile, met is more available than ever. The only people who suffer in this are the people with a simple and legitimate need for this medicine.

      Pseudoephedrine is not toxic; it's just medicine.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:47PM

        by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:47PM (#255256)

        You do realize that the rules are because folks were using it to make meth, right?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47PM (#255276)

          Does it look like I give a fuck about meth heads when I want a drug that fucking works?

        • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:56PM

          by M. Baranczak (1673) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:56PM (#255323)
          This is beside the point. According to the WP article, the law didn't do shit to reduce the availability of meth. So all it does is hassle regular people, for no benefit whatsoever.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:08PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:08PM (#255184) Journal

      Because most of the time the people arguing for more freedom with respect to toxic substances, those are the people who most need to be old no.
       
      Except, it simply doesn't work. How many more examples of prohibition-FAIL do we need to observer before we consider trying something different?

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:52PM

        by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:52PM (#255258)

        How many people do we need to see die because of incompetent medical treatment and untested medicine? We have rules like this because legalization wasn't working. In most cases these aren't things that can be made in a cost effective manner in small batches.

    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:15PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @06:15PM (#255215) Homepage Journal

      Because most of the time the people arguing for more freedom with respect to toxic substances, those are the people who most need to be old no.

      It does not follow from this that it is acceptable to actually tell them no. If you don't want to sell them sudafed, don't sell them sudafed, but it doesn't become ethical to interfere in other people's private medical decisions simply because one believes some people need to be protected from themselves.

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:49PM

        by Francis (5544) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:49PM (#255257)

        So the FDA and medical board are immoral? Are you reading what you've written?

        • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47PM

          by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47PM (#255275) Homepage Journal
          Yes, I believe compulsory monopolies like those are immoral.
          --
          ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:06PM (#255152)

    Trump or Cruz?

  • (Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:41PM

    by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:41PM (#255170) Journal

    you have to get a note from the legal drug dealers, like a slave.

    Nope - pseudoephedrine exists in this weird new category where you have to get it from the pharmacist, but you don't have to have a prescription - you just walk up and ask.

    Of course, that means that you now can't buy it when the pharmacy is closed. Authoritarian #$$%s.

    --
    Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.