(paxil)paroxetine Hcl Discrepencies

what happened?

so uh!

what happened!

ok, you know what...let's stop this game....this child's play...

I am gonna assume that (umm! say) maybe you didn't type in the url extensions to the website correctly, or better yet, maybe you didn't give the right adress. because, I'll have you know when I used the www. (extension) and also only typed in http://us.qsk.com/
you wanna know what happened?
I'll tell 'ya....as you maybe didn't already know!

I RECEIVED A(n) DISCOVER SPONSORING SITE.
it's actually rapidsearch.com

In anycase, I wasn't going to ask you...but just for the satisfaction of making you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, I am now [officially] asking you for the official transcript to the study.
and I mean the whole thing. even the by annum follow-ups!

so, get to it!
also, (and don't accuse of dumbing you down again OK!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
but the three paragraphs you wrote were all simply...3 fucking-asses of independent (not to mention insignificant) variables. Now you can smile!:m:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: what happened?

>> you didn't type in the url extensions to the website correctly

Maybe you should try clicking the link.

>> or better yet, maybe you didn't give the right adress.
>> because, I'll have you know when I used the www.
>> (extension) and also only typed in http://us.qsk.com/
>> you wanna know what happened?
>> I'll tell 'ya....as you maybe didn't already know!
>> I RECEIVED A(n) DISCOVER SPONSORING SITE.

Great. Not try using a G instead of a Q. www.gsk.com
GSK = GlaxoSmithKline

>> I am now [officially] asking you for the official transcript to
>> the study.
>> and I mean the whole thing. even the by annum follow-
>>ups!

I have yet to see a clinical trial in which the results are published in full. If the results are pulled together in a more thorough report than the trial summary, the information is not public. The raw data from the clinical trial belongs to the organization that paid for the trial. The most thorough information that I have ever seen came from a clinical trial summary, which, by the way, is included in the full prescribing information for FDA approved pharmaceuticals.

Lets try this again.
http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_paxil.pdf

>> but the three paragraphs you wrote were all simply...3
>> fucking-asses of independent (not to mention insignificant)
>> variables.

It doesn't look like a dependant variable was included in the animal studies. Placebo experiments aren't necessary for animal studies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

THERE'S NO TITLE FOR THIS ONE.....you done made your bed SONNY!!

YO! YO! YO! YO! YO! YO! YO! YYYOOOO!!!
LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN LISTEN,
MANNNNNNN!!! (oh, and by the way like my man is saying here....I am gonna give you the smoking guns!!
better...I'll (add to it) by rephrasing it... I am going to smoke you!

you cockrocking, fucking bitch!!!
syke naw, just fucking wit 'ya

but for real though, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SUPPORTING THE VERY STATUTES, OF THE AMENDING LAWS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO OUR [OR SHOULD I SAY] THE NATION'S TRADE AND COMMERCE LAWS! under the FDR's administration! what in the fucking blue skies do you think those were for! Man! if you need a new supplier, I'll give one of my spots bro', because the gunja you're getting is fucking you up man, I mean, have you heard of the expression, "water on the brain" , like, your shit you're smoking is litterally turning your brain into oatmeal, man!! I mean what the hell, who's paying you to say this, are you doing it for fun.! anyway!

UH, listen, BUDDY, I THINK FDR MEANT IT WHEN HE SIGNED THAT BILL, BRO' ENFORCING THAT 'FULL DISCLOSURE' ACT, if you wanna call it that.

and I would have blasted you more, but I am glad you redeemed yourself there when you said

because in that same sentence, you said

of course I knew you wouldn't keep quiet for long, because if you didn't know, you would eventually find out the magnitude of what you just said...'cause, if you anyone who's anyone, you know that the FDA will get or would have gotten the (and I repeat as you said) "FULL" clinical trial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea what the purpose of this statement is:

"but for real though, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SUPPORTING THE VERY STATUTES, OF THE AMENDING LAWS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO OUR [OR SHOULD I SAY] THE NATION'S TRADE AND COMMERCE LAWS! under the FDR's administration! what in the fucking blue skies do you think those were for! Man! if you need a new supplier, I'll give one of my spots bro', because the gunja you're getting is fucking you up man, I mean, have you heard of the expression, "water on the brain" , like, your shit you're smoking is litterally turning your brain into oatmeal, man!! I mean what the hell, who's paying you to say this, are you doing it for fun.! anyway!"

>> UH, listen, BUDDY, I THINK FDR MEANT IT WHEN HE SIGNED
>> THAT BILL, BRO' ENFORCING THAT 'FULL DISCLOSURE' ACT,
>> if you wanna call it that.

If you are talking about disclosing the full information of clinical trial data, the clinical trial summary counts as full disclosure. Every pertinent number and statistic is included in a clinical trial summary, and the summary tells the reader everything that the actual trial data would. The only difference is that the actual trial data is expressed in terms of laboratory results and medical charts, it isn't "summarized". That is what the summary is for.

>> you know that the FDA will get or would have gotten the
>> (and I repeat as you said) "FULL" clinical trial.

I said, "I have yet to see a clinical trial in which the results are published in full," meaning that the summary isn't 500,000 pages long (like the raw data), full of unrelated blood pressure, cholesterol, and and urine test data (which was already known from the prior 2 trials) that isn't pertinent to the trial. All of this data is collected and analyzed, even though it was already done in the prior 2 trials, to show that the drug does or does not affect particular body systems.

The pharmaceutical companies, or the organization that is conducting the trials, sends all of the raw data, all of the medical charts on every patient, all of the test results on every patient, and all of the patient report forms submitted by every patient, to the FDA. Along with the raw data, the organization submitting the drug application submits the clinical trial summary and the proposed prescribing information. The FDA then reviews the raw data (which is why it can take the FDA upwards of 2 years to approve a new drug) and compares the data to the trial summary and the prescribing information. If there is any pertinent information that is missing the drug will not be approved, and the organization submitting the application must wait another 2 possible years for another review.

The organization submitting the application has their own team of pharmacists, doctors, and chemistry PhD's, and the FDA has their own team of PharmD's, MD's, and PhD's. Each group has a separate team of statistical analysts, led by PharmD's, to compose and interpret the data. You are suggesting a recall of paroxetine, which is absurd. You must be suggesting that the information obtained in the clinical trial is innacurate, or the FDA is corrupt and somehow biased in favor of the pharmaceutical companies. I fail to see your reasoning.

Instead of writing half-witted insults, why don't you review the FDA approved prescribing information yourself.

 

eaxelrod , do you have a comment on this SSRI study ? I think it was funded by several pharmaceutical companies ...which is surprising considering some of the conclusions .

-------------------------

http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

" Approximately 80% of the response to medication was duplicated in placebo control groups "

Some patients were able to descern that they recieved a placebo because of lack of side effects ... ( " Antidepressant clinical trial data indicate that the ability of patients and doctors to deduce whether they have been assigned to the drug or placebo condition exceeds chance levels possibly because of the greater occurrence of side effects ... " ) therefore , the difference between these drugs and fake ones are negligible . " (T)he medications should not have been approved."

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

for pete's sake, you can't believe every little jot and tittle you read on a website. learn to discriminate and investigate. :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

>> for pete's sake, you can't believe every little jot and tittle
>> you read on a website. learn to discriminate and investigate.

What website are you talking about?

 

>> do you have a comment on this SSRI study ? I think it
>> was funded by several pharmaceutical companies ...which
>> is surprising considering some of the conclusions .

I think that, once they discovered that there was a smaller than previously thought difference between the control and experimental groups, they chose to continue the trial because cancelling a trial is usually indicative of serious adverese and/or unexpected effects, i.e. the enormous HRT study that was cancelled this fall. If they were to cancel it, rumors would be floating around about the safety of the drugs. It is much simpler to explain away the situationally negative results than to cover up the results.

I am not incredibly suprised by the results of the study, but I am wary of them. Each of the drugs in the study each already completed a handful of their own studies that prove their safety and effectiveness vs a placebo. A conclusion cannot easily be formed from the differing results of a single study vs the of numerous unrelated studies, so obviously further testing needs to be done.


It may be a feeble attempt for an explanation, but I would not be suprised if the study turned into a huge marketing ploy (once they could predict the results) to shift SSRI users over to an entirely new class of drug. Then I realized that only 4 of the 6 antidepressants tested were SSRI's (fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, and sertraline), while the other 2 (venlafaxine and nefazodone) are 'generic' antidepressants that are chemically unrelated to SSRI's.

 

look, i have many comments on the subject, but, no one gives a rats ass what i think...i could care less what the Pharm. "conglomerates" print about their "studies" ...blah.