Chantix....anybody try it?

[eball]

In all seriousness, the one thing I have to say to anyone using (or thinking about using) Chantix is to make sure the people close to you KNOW YOU ARE ON IT and that they let you know immediately if you exhibit any behaviors that are completely out of character. Similarly, if you have odd or distressing thoughts (beyond the urge to smoke), you should immediately let your doctor know.

[plenzmd1]

In all seriousness, the one thing I have to say to anyone using (or thinking about using) Chantix is to make sure the people close to you KNOW YOU ARE ON IT and that they let you know immediately if you exhibit any behaviors that are completely out of character. Similarly, if you have odd or distressing thoughts (beyond the urge to smoke), you should immediately let your doctor know.

Why do you say that E?

[Gordio]

Thursday morning Im going to my third funeral of a close friend whose dad has died of lung cancer within the last year. All three of my friends dad's were in the late 50s & all three were longtime chain smokers.

 

I never smoked, never really had the urge so I'm not going to pretend I know what you guys are going thru. Just want to wish you good luck, keep at, you guys could do it if you are committed & put your minds to it. If the drug helps & you are carefull monitoring the side effects I say go for it.

[eball]

Why do you say that E?

Well, here's one article you should read. Additionally, one public interest group (Public Citizen) offers the following recommendation:

 

"In general, people should wait at least seven years from the date of FDA approval to take any new drug unless it is one of those rare “breakthrough” drugs that offers a documented therapeutic advantage over older, proven drugs. This is because new drugs are tested in a relatively small number of people before being released, and serious adverse effects or life-threatening drug interactions may not be detected until the new drug has been taken by hundreds of thousands of people.

 

We call this our Seven-Year Rule. It is based on a study we co-authored in the May 1, 2002 Journal of the American Medical Association. This study found that half of all new drug safety withdrawals occurred within the first two years of FDA approval. Half of the combined number of drug safety withdrawals and black box warnings, the strongest type of safety warning the FDA can request, occurred within seven years of new drug approvals – thus the Seven Year Rule."

 

Chantix was approved by the FDA in 2007, so if one is to follow this rule he/she would wait until 2014. Obviously, the execs at Pfizer would disagree.

 

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I see this sort of stuff ALL the time in my field.

[Nervous Guy]

Well, here's one article you should read. Additionally, one public interest group (Public Citizen) offers the following recommendation:

 

"In general, people should wait at least seven years from the date of FDA approval to take any new drug unless it is one of those rare “breakthrough” drugs that offers a documented therapeutic advantage over older, proven drugs. This is because new drugs are tested in a relatively small number of people before being released, and serious adverse effects or life-threatening drug interactions may not be detected until the new drug has been taken by hundreds of thousands of people.

 

We call this our Seven-Year Rule. It is based on a study we co-authored in the May 1, 2002 Journal of the American Medical Association. This study found that half of all new drug safety withdrawals occurred within the first two years of FDA approval. Half of the combined number of drug safety withdrawals and black box warnings, the strongest type of safety warning the FDA can request, occurred within seven years of new drug approvals – thus the Seven Year Rule."

 

Chantix was approved by the FDA in 2007, so if one is to follow this rule he/she would wait until 2014. Obviously, the execs at Pfizer would disagree.

 

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I see this sort of stuff ALL the time in my field.

not to quibble, but it was approved in 2006, and has been in man since 2003 or 2004.

[plenzmd1]

Well, here's one article you should read. Additionally, one public interest group (Public Citizen) offers the following recommendation:

 

"In general, people should wait at least seven years from the date of FDA approval to take any new drug unless it is one of those rare “breakthrough” drugs that offers a documented therapeutic advantage over older, proven drugs. This is because new drugs are tested in a relatively small number of people before being released, and serious adverse effects or life-threatening drug interactions may not be detected until the new drug has been taken by hundreds of thousands of people.

 

We call this our Seven-Year Rule. It is based on a study we co-authored in the May 1, 2002 Journal of the American Medical Association. This study found that half of all new drug safety withdrawals occurred within the first two years of FDA approval. Half of the combined number of drug safety withdrawals and black box warnings, the strongest type of safety warning the FDA can request, occurred within seven years of new drug approvals – thus the Seven Year Rule."

 

Chantix was approved by the FDA in 2007, so if one is to follow this rule he/she would wait until 2014. Obviously, the execs at Pfizer would disagree.

 

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I see this sort of stuff ALL the time in my field.

 

i have read about 10 differant articles on it, and talked to the doc about those concerns. He said if I was depressed going in, an alcoholic or drug user etc maybe he would be a little more weary of presribing the medication. However, he has been prescribing it with very good results, and the ONLY side effect in his patients was the nausea. That was pretty much what the other articles I read said also.

 

Appreciate the link, and told my wife that now was the great time to try this as no Buffalo sports right now, and I do not really get depressed till after we lose the opener again on a last second play and I get depressed thinking I have already seen this before

[eball]

i have read about 10 differant articles on it, and talked to the doc about those concerns. He said if I was depressed going in, an alcoholic or drug user etc maybe he would be a little more weary of presribing the medication. However, he has been prescribing it with very good results, and the ONLY side effect in his patients was the nausea. That was pretty much what the other articles I read said also.

 

Appreciate the link, and told my wife that now was the great time to try this as no Buffalo sports right now, and I do not really get depressed till after we lose the opener again on a last second play and I get depressed thinking I have already seen this before

LOL -- fair enough. The key is being self aware, I believe, with issues like this. During your research did you happen to find the story about the former Edie Brickell keyboardist (Albrecht)? Crazy schitt. No proof that Chantix was to blame, obviously, but it raised the profile of the drug.

 

Relying on FDA approval as proof pharmaceuticals are safe is, unfortunately, a risky proposition. That agency is underfunded and overworked -- and it has only gotten worse.

[plenzmd1]

LOL -- fair enough. The key is being self aware, I believe, with issues like this. During your research did you happen to find the story about the former Edie Brickell keyboardist (Albrecht)? Crazy schitt. No proof that Chantix was to blame, obviously, but it raised the profile of the drug.

 

Relying on FDA approval as proof pharmaceuticals are safe is, unfortunately, a risky proposition. That agency is underfunded and overworked -- and it has only gotten worse.

 

saw that article, and I am sure having a BAC of .3 had nothing to do with him going nutso.

[stuckincincy]

Relying on FDA approval as proof pharmaceuticals are safe is, unfortunately, a risky proposition. That agency is underfunded and overworked -- and it has only gotten worse.

 

There has never been a government agency that didn't claim that.

 

If they are underfunded, well, Congress can solve that if they would care to drop some of their earmarks and local pork projects. Granted - they can't explicitly force an Administration to spend funding for the FDA - but they can certainly withhold in other areas to put a heavy squeeze on. The new leadership of Congress made a lot of glorious promises, but making sure the FDA got a larger cut seems to be just more election rhetoric gathering dust...

 

And the FDA as well as all agencies are always subject to the whims, right or wrong, qualified or not, of this or that politically-appointed boss (with Congressmen getting their bites in - it's not just the Administrative branch).

 

But not so curiously, very few quit. The lifetime employment remains appealing, especially since the old discount in wages in exchange for a lifetime sinecure has been largely erased.

 

And the FDA gets stabbed both ways - damned if they don't approve a drug hastily, and damned if they do.

[JoeFerguson]

Why can't you guys just quit cold turkey?

 

Just look at yourself in the mirror and decide to man up and quit.

 

Then you won't have to worry about going crazy on some drug.

[stuckincincy]

Why can't you guys just quit cold turkey?

 

Just look at yourself in the mirror and decide to man up and quit.

 

Then you won't have to worry about going crazy on some drug.

 

Why won't the government just make cigarettes illegal?

[Sketch Soland]

Why won't the government just make cigarettes illegal?

 

It's illegal to ask rhetorical questions

[stuckincincy]

It's illegal to ask rhetorical questions

 

 

You win the cash prize.

[JoeFerguson]

Why won't the government just make cigarettes illegal?

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you want to quit smoking at least acknowledge that's it more a behavioral problem than a physiological one.

 

If I want to force myself to do work I don't pop some ritalin or adderall, I JUST DO IT.

 

Taking a drug that helps you quit smoking is just prolonging the quitting process and giving you an excuse to keep smoking. Then if it doesn't stop you from smoking you can say, "Oh, well that Chantrix didn't work. I'm just going to keep smoking because there is nothing that I can TAKE to help me quit." Like Sketch said, if you really wanted to quit then you would quit.

[stuckincincy]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you want to quit smoking at least acknowledge that's it more a behavioral problem than a physiological one.

 

If I want to force myself to do work I don't pop some ritalin or adderall, I JUST DO IT.

 

Taking a drug that helps you quit smoking is just prolonging the quitting process. Then if it doesn't stop you from smoking you can say, "Oh, well that Chantrix didn't work. I'm just going to keep smoking because there is nothing that I can TAKE to help me quit." Like Sketch said, if you really wanted to quit then you would quit.

 

So...you are willing to pay about $400 extra in State taxes to make up for Cig tax shortfall, as well as greatly increased FICA tax because smokes and their maladies kill quickly in mid-life usually, and the victims don't hang around to pull a dime out of the Social Security system? Open your wallet. See a 1989 study by the then-Price Waterhouse company, who concluded that the best financial thing to do about smokers is to offer them a light.

 

BTW, here's the latest from OH...finally got rid of the last of the cig cessation organizations so the currently-ruling Dems can divvy up the cash..

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes alcohol and drug dependencies as an addiction, a sickness. And money gets yanked out of your pocket to pay for the so-afflicted.

 

That nicotine addiction exists is well-established. So I want you, being a fair fellow, to push legislators to force you to pay for me to solve my addiction. I figure an extra 500 bucks added to your 1040 bottom line will save my soul and make you feel good about buying into the crap about smoking costing society and business profits.

 

BTW, Our new Governor, Ted Strickland - D, grabbed the last of the $$$ from the government confiscation of private assets, i.e., the 'Tobacco Settlement". If you recall, the idea was to help folks stop smoking, but OH, like most if not all States, filled their general funds with the loot.

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/14/ap4886951.html

 

This is a dated article. The deed has been done in OH. The Gov sold the remainder of the extracted settlement $$$ for 50% of value to feed the State coffers. The outfit that administered the no smoking effort had been closed.

[Bill from NYC]

Only 2 days, and I have smoked less than half as much. I would have been smoking right now, and I am not. The dosage doubles soon. We will see.

[ofiba]

So...you are willing to pay about $400 extra in State taxes to make up for Cig tax shortfall, as well as greatly increased FICA tax because smokes and their maladies kill quickly in mid-life usually, and the victims don't hang around to pull a dime out of the Social Security system? Open your wallet. See a 1989 study by the then-Price Waterhouse company, who concluded that the best financial thing to do about smokers is to offer them a light.

 

BTW, here's the latest from OH...finally got rid of the last of the cig cessation organizations so the currently-ruling Dems can divvy up the cash..

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes alcohol and drug dependencies as an addiction, a sickness. And money gets yanked out of your pocket to pay for the so-afflicted.

 

That nicotine addiction exists is well-established. So I want you, being a fair fellow, to push legislators to force you to pay for me to solve my addiction. I figure an extra 500 bucks added to your 1040 bottom line will save my soul and make you feel good about buying into the crap about smoking costing society and business profits.

 

BTW, Our new Governor, Ted Strickland - D, grabbed the last of the $$$ from the government confiscation of private assets, i.e., the 'Tobacco Settlement". If you recall, the idea was to help folks stop smoking, but OH, like most if not all States, filled their general funds with the loot.

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/14/ap4886951.html

 

This is a dated article. The deed has been done in OH. The Gov sold the remainder of the extracted settlement $$$ for 50% of value to feed the State coffers. The outfit that administered the no smoking effort had been closed.

 

Cincy, Joe isn't saying that he wants all people to quit smoking because they are costing society money. He is simply saying you don't need a drug to quit smoking.

[bills_fan]

Only 2 days, and I have smoked less than half as much. I would have been smoking right now, and I am not. The dosage doubles soon. We will see.

 

 

Thanks for the update Bill...good luck.

[JoeFerguson]

So...you are willing to pay about $400 extra in State taxes to make up for Cig tax shortfall, as well as greatly increased FICA tax because smokes and their maladies kill quickly in mid-life usually, and the victims don't hang around to pull a dime out of the Social Security system? Open your wallet. See a 1989 study by the then-Price Waterhouse company, who concluded that the best financial thing to do about smokers is to offer them a light.

 

BTW, here's the latest from OH...finally got rid of the last of the cig cessation organizations so the currently-ruling Dems can divvy up the cash..

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes alcohol and drug dependencies as an addiction, a sickness. And money gets yanked out of your pocket to pay for the so-afflicted.

 

That nicotine addiction exists is well-established. So I want you, being a fair fellow, to push legislators to force you to pay for me to solve my addiction. I figure an extra 500 bucks added to your 1040 bottom line will save my soul and make you feel good about buying into the crap about smoking costing society and business profits.

 

BTW, Our new Governor, Ted Strickland - D, grabbed the last of the $$$ from the government confiscation of private assets, i.e., the 'Tobacco Settlement". If you recall, the idea was to help folks stop smoking, but OH, like most if not all States, filled their general funds with the loot.

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/14/ap4886951.html

 

This is a dated article. The deed has been done in OH. The Gov sold the remainder of the extracted settlement $$$ for 50% of value to feed the State coffers. The outfit that administered the no smoking effort had been closed.

 

WHAT does what you just said have anything to do with what I said?

 

I am not denying the physiological addiction of nicotine, BUT, no one forced you to have that first cigarette. I refuse to believe that a pill is the silver bullet answer to smokers who want to quit. If you want to quit, overcome the addiction with some good old fashioned will-power.

 

As far as your tirade about the society's economic burden, I really don't care about smokers as a whole one way or the other. It is their choice to smoke and I don't believe that it is the government's responsibility to get them to quit or not.

[eball]

There has never been a government agency that didn't claim that.

 

If they are underfunded, well, Congress can solve that if they would care to drop some of their earmarks and local pork projects. Granted - they can't explicitly force an Administration to spend funding for the FDA - but they can certainly withhold in other areas to put a heavy squeeze on. The new leadership of Congress made a lot of glorious promises, but making sure the FDA got a larger cut seems to be just more election rhetoric gathering dust...

 

And the FDA as well as all agencies are always subject to the whims, right or wrong, qualified or not, of this or that politically-appointed boss (with Congressmen getting their bites in - it's not just the Administrative branch).

 

But not so curiously, very few quit. The lifetime employment remains appealing, especially since the old discount in wages in exchange for a lifetime sinecure has been largely erased.

 

And the FDA gets stabbed both ways - damned if they don't approve a drug hastily, and damned if they do.

Look who's doing the damning, and you'll see why the public loses. Big Pharma loves the fact that the FDA isn't funded or staffed well enough to give new drugs the kind of scrutiny they deserve.