Important Facts.
1) The U.S. is bound by the Montreal treaty, signed in 1987, which has timetables for phasing our a ozone attacking gases called CFC. CFC is used to propel the drug in an inhaler.
2) The FDA mandated the end of most CFC inhalers back in 2008. This article is about a specific type of inhaler for that dispenses epinephrine that is being taken off the market by 2012.
3) The CFC propellant has largely been replaced by another type of gases called HFA in most inhalers.
4) There is no HFA version that dispenses the epinephrine drug. Users will have to switch to an entirely different called albuterol.
5) The Pharma industry made a deliberate choice not to develop an HFA epinephrine inhaler back in 2007, even though the FDA pointed out their were no technical barriers.
Its easier to force consumers to buy a new more expensive prescription drug than create an actual replacement. Yet another example of the American public being bent over by drug industry.
So, it sounds to me like a payoff for campaign contributions.
More like collusion among manufactures to avoid creating lower cost replacements. There isn't anything the FDA can when the industry refuses to create a needed drug for extra profits. I doubt anyone was paid off, our system is simply broken.
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.
Important Facts.
1) The U.S. is bound by the Montreal treaty, signed in 1987, which has timetables for phasing our a ozone attacking gases called CFC. CFC is used to propel the drug in an inhaler.
2) The FDA mandated the end of most CFC inhalers back in 2008. This article is about a specific type of inhaler for that dispenses epinephrine that is being taken off the market by 2012.
3) The CFC propellant has largely been replaced by another type of gases called HFA in most inhalers.
4) There is no HFA version that dispenses the epinephrine drug. Users will have to switch to an entirely different drug called albuterol.
5) The Pharma industry made a deliberate choice not to develop an HFA epinephrine inhaler back in 2007, even though the FDA pointed out there were no technical barriers.
Its easier to force consumers to buy a new more expensive prescription drug than create an actual replacement. Yet another example of the American public being bent over by the drug industry.
More like, being bent over by the government--BOHICA. This is a government regulation, in case you didn't notice.
CFC's are used as propellant, yeah? And each time you use it some is expelled with the medication.
So asthma patients have been getting low doses of CFC's and no one's cared or noticed - until this came up?
This seems quite shocking to me for some reason.
This is more about Big Pharm wanting to see this low-cost alternative gone than the ozone or EPA. The same company that makes this has switched the propellant in its more expensive inhaled products but not this one. If they can blame the government for this and make it stick, well that's gravy.
The alternative inhalers are only more expensive because the companies making them are gouging us.... in case you didn't notice. There's no reason they should be more expensive.
CFCs are heavily restricted for very, very good reason.
The alternative inhalers are only more expensive because the companies making them are gouging us.... in case you didn't notice. There's no reason they should be more expensive.
CFCs are heavily restricted for very, very good reason.
The chemicals in the inhaler are not considered a (direct) health risk AFAIK.
Because the government told us so? Because of global warming?
It just seems like backwards logic to not be concerned when we're discussing people who have a breathing disorder.
I actually use an inhaler of this type. And this issue has been a pain in my ass for gears already.
There were originally several manufacturers. Then some interim requirement or temporary stop left shelves empty for like six months, then only primatene returned, and a couple store brand generics that are obviously the same product.
And don't forget. I not only will have to pay more, I also will have to pay a doctor for a prescription.
This is an example of why for-profit healthcare is problematic. Because this is clearly about getting more money out of me. NOT providing better quality.
Ever stop to think that it might actually cost more to manufacture the new puffers? Kinda like when the EPA outlawed R12 refigerent and forced us to use 134A, which is three times more expensive.
No, not because of global warming and not because "the government" told us so.
Ever stop to think it might actually not?
You seem to be under the impression that nobody ever bothered to check and see if this was a health risk. They checked.
I'm going to totally ignore the environmental aspects of this silly EPA edict and jump right to the elephant in the room. WTF? Anyone with asthma who treats it with weak, relatively ineffective epinephrine OTC medications ( Asthma Over-the-Counter (OTC) Treatment Medications and Information on Asthma Management on MedicineNet.com ) is playing Russian roulette with their lives. Almost all asthma patients are on prescription albuterol rescue inhalers. So this epinephrine idiocy will probably affect few real asthma sufferers.
What makes me bolt upright is the thought that if they can do this for an OTC inhaler, what's to stop them from banning albuterol and other rescue inhalers from sufferers of asthma, emphysema, COPD, bronchitus, etc. Since when can the EPA make medical decisions for the entire populace on its own?
Their own logic is astoundingly stupid. Inhalers are not hairsprays that fill the air with noxious fumes. The contents are inhaled directly into the lungs, held there for as long as possible, and exhaled as carbon dioxide (as is every breath one exhales). What kind of roaring incompetents are filling jobs at the EPA anyway? This is assinine... and it has the potential to be deadly. :2mad:
Right! I guess that why the government outlawed these kinds of puffers.
Weren't you asking me about stupid assed government regulations on another thread recently? There ya go.
You can prove that it does?You can prove that it doesn't?
So many things that are bad for you were given a thumbs-up at some point - if the government or big drug companies support something I get suspicious because these both tend to be corrupt and self-serving.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?