Talk:List of withdrawn drugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Withdrawn drugs and side effects[edit]

No assessment has been done of systematic social bias regarding withdrawn drugs. Researchers may find correlations between a drug and some side effects not observed during initial investigation of the drug and assume they are direct consequence of the use of said drug, but scarcely test the hypothesis that (some) patients using the drug have also concomitantly applied some other substance without their knowledge. This is easily explainable several ways: superstition, social circle beliefs, selective perception of natural remedies as irrelevant...

For example, the knowledge that some patient is using some drug may be associated popularly to the need to supply some popular remedy just by the name of the medication. Societies may be so convinced of their belief that some consequences must be reached that they apply some substance as cause while the patient is curing herself with prescribed medication, to produce unexpected results. Some cases of poisoning by recipe would be exposed by conditions after a prescribed drug cures the patient so that poisoning takes another form, causing a second condition apparently as a consequence of the prescribed drug.

This paradigm is very evident in the belief of Mexican Indians, for whom the use of marijuana, a socially desirable recreational drug, has to be accompanied eventually by the use of psilocybin, a socially undesirable recreational and ritual drug which can be consumed with any meal without the smoker knowing it. It is also the belief of policy enforcers that some substances must lead to consequences easily forced on patients through other substances, turning into self fulfilling and self sustaining prophecies as there will be interests in producing the enforcers condition independently of users and enforcers.

It may also be in the interest of manufacturers that a very effective drug be withdrawn lest it reduce the market for a set of profitable drugs. Generally speaking, any substance can lead to the social forcing of side effects on its users through concomitant conditions including substance administration. If investigators do not realize this principle, useful lines of research may be pruned at the root.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.26.73 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

75.101.93.75 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Nitpicker77

Nitpicker77 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Methylhexanamine (DMAA)[edit]

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food. Methylhexanamine (DMAA) is a drug that has been licenced and approved in 1948 for use as a nasal decongestant, the approval was withdrawn in 1983.1. DMAA is listed in the Anti-Doping ageny prohibition list as a stimulant.2. A Scientific Opinion on the Regulatory Status of 1,3-Dimethylamylamine (DMAA) states "Based on our findings we conclude that oral preparations with >4 mg DMAA per dose unit should be considered as effective as a bronchodilator. Food supplements that exceed that limit are in fact subject to the Medicines Act and require licensing. Dosages higher than 100-200 mg are expected to cause serious adverse events.3. Though DMAA has recently been marketed as a food supplement, there is no doubt that it is a drug. Why is its referenced addition being reverted? Ochiwar (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ochiwar if you are Bold and introduce new matter, and are reverted, the wikipedia way is to then Discuss, as per WP:BRD - the right move is NOT to re-revert. Today you introduced new matter, namely the FDA's current effort to get DMAA off the market - you cited the date as 2013 and cardiovascular problems as the issue. The current efforts are not about DMAA as a drug, but rather, as a dietary ingredient, which is a different classification of a substance at the FDA. You are correct, that it was marketed as a drug from 1948 until Lily withdrew it from the market in 1983. We don't know why Lilly withdrew it. So the date and the reason are wrong, which I will fix.
The question I asked remains open - should we start a new section to deal with food ingredients (eg food coloring, dietary supplement ingredients) that have been withdrawn or banned?Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
To my mind, on a broad scope and as per the definiton of Drug above, dietary supplements and the likes are mostly drugs or compositions of drugs. Unfortunately there are grey areas. As our article on dietary supplements states U.S. authorities define dietary supplements as foods, while elsewhere they may be classified as drugs. So yes, it might be pertinent to have a new section, or even a new article on food coloring and other supplements to close down a little on that loop hole. Ochiwar (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. This article is about pharmaceutical drugs which generally have absolutely nothing to do with dietary supplements anywhere in the world. Please do not mush them together. Cases like DMAA are rare and relatively short-lived.Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)