The benefits failed to out weigh the side effects...???

I could say the same thing about most drugs on the market right now.

Ain't that the truth. Every commercial for any medication always seems to warn you side effects may include death, heart disease, kidney problems, liver issues, depression (always makes me laugh when it's an anti-depressant they're touting), headaches, dizziness, etc.

I could say the same thing about most drugs on the market right now.

Really? Like which ones? Out of the ~150,000 preparations, you are saying that >75,000 have significant contraindications? I'd be fascinated to hear your data...I'm sure the FDA would as well. Actually, you could quite possibly bring down centuries of pharmacology, not withstanding the vast bodies of associated empirical literature. Heck, you could single-handedly bring down the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies with such a statement!! Please, do tell! I would love to be privy to your information!

Oops guess I hit a nerve...Do you work for a pharmaceutical company PhD-TT?

In fact I don't. Ironically enough, I am in academics. But my career choice has little to do with your claim that >75,000 medications purportedly have greater health risks than benefits. So, I was astounded at your hidden gem of data that iterated those findings, and wondered, obviously, how you were going to present them to a cohort of seemingly blind clinicians and the powerhouses that regulate them. I mean, the gravity of your claims would no doubt bring entire sectors of the economy crashing down, and succinctly and readily revolutionize how we (I am no doubt assuming that your credentials are extensive as your research into pharmacokinetics) as translational scientists function as a whole. Please, I'm all ears!!

Please, I'm all ears!!

Probably a side effect from something you took.

Geez lighten up a little. You honestly don't think it is ironic when one gets blasted with advertising of all kinds of medication on tv that almost half the commercial time is taken up by a long list of potential side-effects? I appreciate much of that is due to our tort driven society, but nevertheless there has to be some kind of understanding there is not a single medication out there I've ever encountered (OTC or prescribed) that doesn't have some kind of warning attached to it. Don't know about you, but when I hear "death" as a side-effect I usually consider that to be worse than whatever is ailing me.

But my career choice has little to do with your claim that >75,000 medications purportedly have greater health risks than benefits.

I didn't say 75,000 medications have greater health risks than benefits that is some thing you came up with from who knows where.

So, I was astounded at your hidden gem of data that iterated those findings, and wondered, obviously, how you were going to present them to a cohort of seemingly blind clinicians and the powerhouses that regulate them.

I never said anything about presenting data to a cohort of blind clinicians or the powerhouses that regulate them. Again that was something that you came up with.

You honestly don't think it is always ironic when one gets blasted with advertising of all kinds of medication on tv that almost half the commercial time is taken up by a long list of potential side-effects?

I wouldn't exactly say its ironic, but I understand what you are implying. Sadly, I don't watch the television much, so I'm relegated to gather my body of evidence from such sources such as PubMed. But I think you have answered your own query with what I have emphasized from your quote. I was reading the trial of GSK's Lovaza, and uncovered devastating off-target consequences such as belching and skin rash. Good Lord! Stop production at once!!! If you are silly enough to fall for GSK's marketing approach, perhaps you shouldn't be making more grandiose health decisions.

I appreciate much of that is due to our tort driven society, but nevertheless there has to be some kind of understanding there is not a single medication out there I've ever encountered (OTC or prescribed) that doesn't have some kind of warning attached to it.

You have read the meta-analysis for the phase III results for these various concoctions, correct? So understanding the numbers, which have been independently verified, its perplexes me how you take those statistics, and deem them more harmful than the desired benefit. Specifically, you remember the outrage and fury that arose surrounding rofecoxib (Vioxx)? The data (from The Lancet), indicated that the incidents of MI swelled to 21/1000 in those on 50mg rofecoxib from 12/1000 for those who took no NSAIDS, non-rofecoxib NSAIDS, or the lowest dose of rofecoxib. While this is almost double the rate of control, it amounts to less than a 1% increase. And this was perhaps the most vilified, egregious story of "big pharma wanting to kill us" that I can remember. Come on, come up with something better than "my television told me so".

Okay how about the voices in my head told me so. :P

I didn't say 75,000 medications have greater health risks than benefits that is some thing you came up with from who knows where.

Your quote from above:

The benefits failed to out weigh the side effects...???

I could say the same thing about most drugs on the market right now.

Um, yes, that is exactly what you said, almost verbatim. I've even emphasized your claim to help you locate it. There are approximately 150,000 unique pharmacologics. Most would indicate greater than half. Half of 150,000 is....wait for it...75,000!!!

I never said anything about presenting data to a cohort of blind clinicians or the powerhouses that regulate them. Again that was something that you came up with.

You indicated that you "could say that about" >75,000 drugs. I was bewildered exactly how you could say that, and even further perplexed how you could present this evidence. I mean, surely, you would recognize the impacts that such a statement would have. I'm going to two cardiovascular-centric symposiums this summer, and truly would be a keynote if I could fast-track your findings. It would be astonishing, if "you could say that".

I could say...I could say that pigs fly but that does not mean I have done research to back it up.

Just my opinion, not a fact

You assumed that I was stating a fact but I was not. :)

I will say with the medical issues I have had in life and all the pills I have been prescribed. That most of them didn't work and yes the side effects were way worse than any benefit if they benefited me at all. But that is just from my experience...

So you can understand how I could say the same thing about many of the other drugs out there.

The FDA has shown great wisdom and common sense. Everyone knows that the only two items needed to improve a woman's desire for sex is a big box of chocolates and a bottle of champagne.

Unless she's allergic to chocolate and abhors champagne. :P

About 30% of all drugs approved by the FDA perform no better than a placebo. Basically they are sugar pills with side effects. Why does the FDA usually approve them (but not in this case)? It is because the FDA's mission is drug safety, not drug effectiveness. It is because the FDA is controlled by physicians who lack the skills to design, conduct, or evaluate drug trials. It is because over 80% of physicians at the FDA refuse to disclose their financial links to the for-profit medical industry. It is because drug companies are allowed to cherry-pick clinical data and suppress what they want in order to hide bad effects and create good effects where there are none. Physicians (with no other training) lack the skillset to tell the difference.

Chris,

I find it funny, if not comical, that I addressed your mis-informed, false, and otherwise incorrect statements in the other thread about this same subject, but you have yet to refute or otherwise rebut my corrections. You are so incorrect about this that it borders on malicious, but otherwise one must find your post idiotic and inane at best, due to your total disregard of any meaningful debate or research.

Believe me, I am no friend of the FDA. They have many, many practices that are questionable. But you are so far from the truth it borders on insanity. I would love to participate in a meaningful discourse with you, but it seems that you do not wish to learn nor do any pertinent research as to augment your dribble-filled diatribe.

Oh no now less old people will be having sex...well maybe :P

Actually this is not a phenomenon limited to old people. A lot of women report having this issue after having a hysterectomy and some of them have to have one at a young age due to health issues.

I don't think women's libidos are taken as seriously as mens'. Period. Just look how they treat our reproductive and health issues. If you watch the votes against women's health in congress you can easily see that a lot those male law makers could care less.

How about selling good vibrators at Walmart? The level of sexual knowledge in the male population of female anatomy and arousal is enough to make any woman lack orgasms. If men knew how to satisfy a female they would have a greatly improved sex life. www.tinynibbles.com is a great website for information for those who want to learn.

Amen from MO.!

The thing that kills a woman's libido the most is the constant harassment from society at large about being a sexual woman. It's depressing. This then gets translated into all sorts of sexual insults, both because she's too sexual and because she's not sexual enough. Then we get bombarded with an endless chain of articles about sex -- only they're all focused on how women can make their lovers happy. Where's the articles about how our lovers should make us happy? Not in women's mags.

But the cure is simple: love us for who we are and make sure you know how our anatomy works (as Jan said). Keep in mind that pleasurable sex for women is what most men term "foreplay." Many (not all) women only indulge in penile-vaginal penetration to make men happy. A woman who isn't interested in PVP is happy with orgasming before that point.

But if he's not interested in pleasuring her, it's okay if she's not interested at all -- and shouldn't be interested in helping Big Pharma get richer. Of course, there are exceptions due to real health problems, but those problems should be addressed rather than treat the symptom.

Not to mention that in this country we treat menopause like a disease or abhorrent medical condition (we treat pregnancy this way too). And we perform alarming high rates of hysterectomies.

For all the medical advances we have as a nation, I find we still treat women's health in the most arcane ways. I'm glad to see for once the FDA not jump on board with just throwing a pill at it.

Good points. We haven't come all that far since the days when women were termed "hysterical" simply because they had a uterus.

Come on, come up with something better than "my television told me so".

I believe you must have missed the point that it wasn't my "tv telling me so" it was in fact "the manufacturer of the drug who paid for airtime on my tv" who told me so. Like I said, I am sure much of those disclaimers are driven by legal reasons, but it does serve as an example that side-effects do exist.

I wouldn't sweat it. Money works better anyway.

Are you sure you thought that was funny?

Much too high a price.

Will fishing work?

ooooohhhhh, never mind then!!! I will just tough myself and let her sleep........

Excellent! Boost the female self-esteem by complimenting her, helping her out, supporting her, listening to her.....in other words, take her seriously for her presence, what she does for YOU FELLAS out there to boost YOUR SELF-ESTEEM....and you get instant VIAGRA. No other medication necessary (for the most part).

I find it absolutely fascinating medical science is still stymied by the female reproductive system and female emotions. Might it be there is a complex/sophisticated reason for this? This puts things into perspective. The female body is complex/sophisticated, as is the female emotional make-up. Duh. The male make-up is much simpler. Not to male-bash....but....male needs are much simpler...generally. Male body functions are less sophisticated; less hormonal influences.

Interesting topic. I will stop here, lest I get into more personal opinions about the issue.

I find that a new man works wonders. Doh yup I said it. xP

I find it absolutely fascinating medical science is still stymied by the female reproductive system and female emotions.

My theory is that the bulk of what turns women on happens in their own minds, so until they can get into my head and control what I'm thinking about they aren't ever going to make a lick of progress.

Yea it seems like men are more physically centered whereas women are mentally stimulated.

Mentally stimulated by diamonds...

It is still a man's world.

I think the numb er is based on wanting a stronger libido.

I agree, BR. This is a hoax put out by the pharma companies so that they can earn more billions. Most media focuses on telling women they are somehow "wrong" at their core. This is no different.

Good point BR. It would be nice to see that "study" and what exactly qualifies as a "dysfunction."

they don't need the desire, they just need the equipment to do it with. ;)

"Autism. Find a REAL CURE for the various CANCERS, HIV/AIDS, DIABETES, FIBROMYALGIA, DOWN'S SYNDROME, etcetera."

The simple cure is to not let people with these things breed.

well the majority of them aren't even hereditary....

and obviously a large number of women disagree, for good reason, plenty of relationships fail because of large differences in libido. Sex and sexual satisfaction is very important, especially when your expected to be faithful to one partner.

what in between the nachos and cheese dip? or did we forget what we were gonna do!!!

During the nachos and cheese dip.

uh MJ enhances everything dumb ass! (including UNpleasureable things)

There is a song with the following lyrics: "It's hard to kiss the lips at night that chewed your ass out all day long"... Followed by: "if a tree fell in the forest and she didn't hear it, would I still be wrong?"

No woman wants to be the one that "chews your ass" or a" nag". If you don't want to turn your wife/girlfriend into a "nag", it's easy. Learn to listen to her and be both considerate and respectful of her wants and needs. A little of that will go a long way to making you both more happy.

A real relationship, both of their focus should be on making one another happy. That should be your highest priority. Most of the time, you get what you give. If all you give is neglect and chores left undone and flack, then don't expect don't expect a tigress in the bedroom at night (unless she put one there to eat you).

Betty, your response is "spot" on. Husband and wives need to focus on each other! Thier grooves and moves, likes and dislikes in the marriage. When this is accomplised, then it is Tarzan--man and Jane-girl in the privacy of their private place. Keep the world out of your marriage, don't entertain fake satisfaction (he Viagra or she Viagra). Focus, Focus on each other. There is no guarantee that you may leave this world at the same time...but while living--fall inlove with each other over and over again. Love each other to the point that you may one day wake up and say lets start all over again!

Peeon--you are brilliant & have the wrong screen name all at the same time! Sex is the glue that keeps many marriages going(not all of course). The couples that stay together long-term have figured out the transition from sexual partners to true companionship. Biology & hormones are not well understood, but the mind is the MOST powerful sexual organ. That's why this drug is important--if there is no hope for a robust sexual relationship due to biological reasons, why not let women get more control over their bodies? There are way too many lay persons(including the non-medically savvy media) who freak out over "putting something artificial" in their bodies. Guess what?! You dont have to!!!! But dont foist your paranoid insecurities on others...

People keep having sex because it feels good and can strengthen the bond in marriages/relationships. If you're worried about starving babies etc., then focus on giving birth control to those men and women in poor countries. People will have sex regardless of age, or circumstances, or money, so the best thing to do is give them information and resources to control their own reproduction.

But really, what does that have to do with helping women enjoy sex? I would really like to see a female version of Viagra, simply because their is a huge market of women who want and deserve to enjoy their sex lives (even the ones in financially stable, upper-middle class marriages in developed countries). No one wants to have sex if it doesn't feel good, so...