UPJOHN'S DRUG XANAX ON TRIAL
weinecks at mail2.sas.upenn.edu
Mon Mar 23 14:56:22 EST 1998
Steven B. Harris (sbharris at ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <6f23vu$f91$3 at netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks at mail2.sas.upenn.edu
: (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >: Sounds like someone trying to blame their addiction on someone other
: >: themselves.....
: >Since Xanax is a prescription drug and would only be taken on the
: >of a physican, that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me.
: Except that there is no way to predict perfectly in advance how
: anyone will react to a drug.
Actually, afaik, there are ways to predict how you will react to a certain
dose of digitalis, to mention just an example. Some drugs are more
addictive than others. Sometimes, as in the management of heavy pain, the
risk of addiction must be taken in order to reap the benefits, and these
benefits may well be worth the trouble of later withdrawal. That's to be
determined in individual cases, of course, but if it is true that the
manufacturer of Xanax withheld critical information in order to assess
these things, they are to be held accountable.
You can get a good idea from good
: studies, but they never tell you with 100% certainty or accuracy. The
: drug that is the best thing since sliced bread for most people, will be
: Satan's Own Tool for somebody else.
That's besides the point if the allegations mentioned in the original
article are true (on which, of course, I withhold judgment).
: Here's a truth: there are no "bad drugs," --- instead, what there
: are, are bad relationships between certain people and certain drugs.
True for some, not for others.
More information about the Neur-sci