12 ms·
Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years
- h2odragon 4y agoOf course they did. People wouldn't buy their shit if they'd said it'd give you cancer. Oh wait. Maybe they would. everything gives you cancer now, doesn't it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bogwog 4y ago> everything gives you cancer now, doesn't it? Yes, but only in California
- billiallards 4y agoAs I understand it, the wrong combination of tumor suppressant/promoter genes getting switched off/on gives you cancer. Exposure to some things can cause more mutations or hinder your body's error-correction systems, sometimes to extreme degrees. It is a numbers game, though.
- intelVISA 4y agoCRISPR needs to hurry up and roll out ECC for genes...
- ccn0p 4y agowhat's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit of fear and suddenly we're supposed to trust their studies and superbowl commercials.
- pdntspa 4y agoI would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now
- TMWNN 4y agoranitidine was a very, very, very widely used drug. Yet it took 40 years!
- refurb 4y agoThis! Look at the COX-2 inhibitors as well. They were on the market for almost a decade before the increased risk of heart attack popped up in the data.
- marcinzm 4y agoExactly. If you on principle refuse to take any medication or vaccine due to the fact that they almost all have rare, unstudied or potential side effects then that's totally fair. The human body is a very complex thing and every single one of us is different so it's basically impossible to truly know if a drug will have no rare side effects for some sub group. Or at least do extensive deep research on every single medication you take including supplements and over the counter things. If you only do this for the covid vaccine due to reading too much fearmongering then that just means you're irrational.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoHow is this relevant to the parent comment? Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed.
- TMWNN 4y ago>Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed. Even worse, I have taken ranitidine that I had in storage (not in heat) for more than a year! So this news is all the more alarming.
- monero-xmr 4y agoInteresting counterpoint is that a judge recently lambasted the entire body of scientific evidence linking ranitidine (Zantac) to cancer and tossed all the cases. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/judge-dismisses-ranitidine-lawsuits-over-lack-of-evidence/4016695.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/judge-dismisses-ranitidi... If they could find a way to ensure the impurity didn’t exist, I would certainly buy ranitidine again. I found it was the most effective antacid for me.
- kevviiinn 4y agoJudges: people who are famously experts in pharmacology
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- slowmovintarget 4y agoExcept... you still shouldn't use it because it's an anticolinergic linked to dementia in old age, just like Benedryl.
- EarthLaunch 4y agoThank you, this led me down a really interesting rabbithole about age-related dementia and anticholinergic substances. Best tidbits: 1: "Anticholinergic Accumulation: A Slumbering Interaction between Drugs and Food Supplements" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bcpt.12437 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bcpt.12437 2: Chart of medicines with high ACB scores (higher is worse) - you will recognize some of these, such as allergy and anti-nausea meds: (pdf warning) https://corumpharmacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Anticholinergic-cognitive-burden-scale.pdf https://corumpharmacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Anticho...
- 4y ago
- bsuvc 4y agoIt's not just that it causes cancer, but it's that improper storage (heat exposure) increases the risk of it causing cancer, and when informed of that, GSK decided it was not worth doing anything about it. > GSK's leadership was warned on several occasions about the storage issue, but it opted against making any changes to existing plans. In a way, this makes it worse, because they could have taken action to limit the risk to people, but chose not to, presumably to save money or to avoid bad publicity.
- eikenberry 4y agoI read that it is only carcinogenic if stored improperly, which was one of the reasons it stayed available for as long as it did. The article doesn't seem to counter this idea. Do you have any references on the not heat-exposed risks?
- bsuvc 4y agoNo. I had heard Zantac was recalled due to cancer risk, but didn't know it was related to how it was stored until now. It's paywalled, but this seems to be referenced by a lot of reports: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-02/carcinogen-in-heartburn-drug-may-build-during-storage-lab-finds#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-02/carcinoge... Maybe someone else has the actual source.
- zerocrates 4y agoMy understanding is that the carcinogen (NDMA) builds up over time even with storage at recommended temperatures, though increased temperature makes it build up much faster. That's what the FDA said when they pulled it from the market. How old your ranitidine would have to be to have too-high NDMA level without higher heat, I haven't seen any specifics around that. I imagine they could have instead instituted limits about temperature of storage and transport, and chop down the expiration dates, and add big warnings for consumers to actually respect the dates, not keep them in cars, etc... though the market reality that there are several other H2 blockers out there that haven't been shown to have the NDMA issue, not to mention PPIs, likely meant that just pulling ranitidine was the better call.
- ivraatiems 4y agoI used to take ranitidine... one day, it suddenly stopped being available at pharmacies. My physician switched me to famotidine, a similar medication, because there were "supply issues" for the foreseeable future. That was almost two years ago. This is the first I'm hearing about this. So for all I know, I was exposed to an unknown amount of carcinogen for years without being told anything about it even after that information was discovered. What's my recourse?
- nickff 4y ago>"What's my recourse?" A lawsuit, like the thousands mentioned in the article.
- ivraatiems 4y agoHow would I have known to file a lawsuit about something when I had no knowledge of the situation for years?
- sockaddr 4y agoThat’s the beauty of it
- barbazoo 4y agoIs that what class actions are about? Wouldn't you get contacted somehow?
- giraffe_lady 4y agoYou were possibly poisoned, probably intentionally, by an entity that intended to and did profit by it. You may get a small amount of money if you have the luck and the resources to capitalize on it. There's nothing unique or novel about this situation. Is it surprisingly that it happened or just surprising that it happened to you? This is what we do son, this is what american is for. This is the system working as intended.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
- mysterypie 4y ago> Intense public scrutiny on Zantac started in 2019, when an online pharmacy found high levels of a likely carcinogen in the drug and its generics. And the linked article says: > Valisure discovered the link of Zantac and its generics to the carcinogen NDMA during its routine testing of every batch of every medication, and first notified the FDA of its initial findings in June of 2019. On September 13th, Valisure filed a detailed petition with the Food and Drug Administration asking the agency to recall all products containing ranitidine. How in the world is it profitable for an online pharmacy to do this? It's great, but honestly who would pay extra to an online pharmacy to do this testing? Would most people even believe an online pharmacy that said that they did such testing? I'd love to know how they survive.
- blindriver 4y agoI've ordered medication from them because they test to make sure that there's no impurities. It's not that much more expensive and I would gladly pay to know there's no extra chemicals in there that could give me cancer.
- radicaldreamer 4y agoWow, I love that they do this. A few online nootropics suppliers do the same for the supplements they provide but I guess "legit" pharmacies just trust whatever they get from their suppliers usually.
- graphe 4y agoAre you sure they actually test them instead of getting a test from china that says it's good?
- Enginerrrd 4y agoYeah, at least ~5 years ago, even the main one everyone raved about had some pretty shady practices when they alleged to have "tested every batch in house".
- 4y ago
- elromulous 4y agoAnd of course, in the US, none of these people will be brought to justice.
- refurb 4y agoYou realize GSK is a UK pharma company... right?
- Supermancho 4y agoThey do business in the US right? There is an expansive extradition treaty right?
- danuker 4y agoThere is also the "rich lobbyist" effect which seems to repel the justice system. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/05/big-pharmas-lobbying-firepower-brussels-least-eu36-million-year-and-likely-far-more https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/05/big-pharmas-lobbying-...
- refurb 4y agoThis is a worldwide issue. The US may not prosecute, but will Europe? I wouldn't hold my breath that any other country will prosecute either.
- kerkeslager 4y agoI don't know UK law but I very much doubt they're much different from the US in this respect. The article doesn't name those responsible, it just names the corporation (GSK) they're hiding behind. It's unlikely those responsible will be affected by this in any significant way, especially since this has been going on for 40 years and many of those responsible are probably retired. The cost will be paid by workers getting laid off, and by shareholders, as it always is in these cases, while those responsible will move on with 40 years of pocketed profits.
- refurb 4y agoThe cancer causing agent in Zantac is a N-nitrosamine. These are the same class of chemicals that are found in cured meat and they are present in an awful lot of food because they are produced during fermentation. Bacon, beer, even a side product of drinking water treatment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609975/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609975/
- 6451937099 4y ago[dead]
- 6451937099 4y ago[dead]
- LazyMans 4y agoI was telling a friend how unfortunate it is that I live in the south and kept a bottle of this in my car for over a year. I have pretty bad heartburn issues and used to take it only on occasion. Maybe I'll get $35 from a settlement to go with my cancer one day.
- sbaiddn 4y agoJust as a heads up from a professional semi-chemist: dont ingest anything thats been at car temperatures. Its hot enough to chemically alter things, activate diffusions, speed bacterial growth, etc. Its not hot enough to sterilize what you're ingesting.
- LazyMans 4y agoGood advice for sure. I suppose I should make sure the tums in my center console won’t kill me
- sbaiddn 4y agoFYI dont drink Diet soda thats been left in hot places. Aspartame degrades to some nasty compound. Coke delivery guys make sure to rotate the diet soda when they deliver it (my wife took a day-in-the-life tour when she was at coke)
- Baeocystin 4y agoAspartame breaks down in to methanol (which is then metabolized in to formaldehyde) when heated. This sounds bad, but it's worth keeping in mind that plain tomato juice has something like 6x methanol in it than diet sodas. The quantities involved are tiny. Aspartame is metabolized in the same way when consumed cold. The big reason soda manufacturers are concerned about heat is that it loses its sweetness. (all that being said, it's probably still a good idea to avoid anyway)
- Baeocystin 4y agoBut the white spiky crystal fuzz that grew out of some advil left in my car over a desert summer was so cool! (sadly before the era of camera phones, but the needle crystals really did look neat. The contents of the bottle were not ingested.)
- washywashy 4y agoAnecdotal but a relative of mine used Zantac pretty much daily for many years. Died of pancreatic cancer in their 50s.
- KaiserPro 4y agoThis was new information to me, but it appears in the NHS swift action has been taken: https://www.cambridgeshireandpeterboroughccg.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=20533 https://www.cambridgeshireandpeterboroughccg.nhs.uk/EasySite... [PDF warning] it also has the wholesale prices on there.
- hulitu 4y ago> Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years The real problem is that they get a slap on the wrist from the regulator and the business continues as usual.
- kerkeslager 4y agoThe people who made the actual decision may even be retired, and won't even get a slap on the wrist. Remember: GSK didn't make an unethical decision, people did. Letting those people hide behind a corporation means that workers and shareholders pay the consequences for decisions that were only made by a few people.
- hulitu 4y agoI would like to agree with you, but see Volkswagen for an example where this does not apply.
- kerkeslager 4y agoI am not sure I understand what you're saying. Say more?
- trashface 4y agoAnyone know why famotidine, a similar med (aka Pepcid) doesn't have this problem? Or does it, and we just haven't heard about it? I took famotidine for years, ironically I kept hearing during that time that Zantac was more effective, but never switched.
- tyingq 4y agoIt's a different class of drug. Zantac is a PPI (proton pump inhibitor). Other drugs in the same PPI class are Prilosec (Omeprazole) and Nexium (Esomeprazole), and while not recalled, could have similar problems. Pepcid (famotidine) and Tagamet (Cimetidine) are H2 blockers, another class of heartburn medication, that hasn't shown the same issues. On the other hand, untreated chronic reflux is a big driver for stomach and esophageal cancers. So it's possible that having taken Zantac for a long time was less risky cancer-wise than not taking anything.
- jamesadney 4y agoZantac (ranitidine) is an H2 blocker, not a PPI.
- tyingq 4y agoUgh, yep, you're correct. Too late to edit and fix, unfortunately.
- kerkeslager 4y agoGSK didn't make decisions, people made decisions, and those people need to be named and held responsible. Putting this on GSK means that the people who knowingly sold a cancer-causing drug while hiding the risks get away without any consequences. Given this went on for 40 years, probably a lot of those people are retired, and won't even lose pay, bonuses, share price, etc. Meanwhile, assuming this leads to any sort of lawsuits, fines, and lost sales, the people who will pay the price if GSK is held responsible will be shareholders, who likely had no visibility into these decisions, and workers who will be laid off, again without having had any role in these decisions. This system is fundamentally broken. It's not just a small loophole that can be closed: the entire thing is a loophole that allows sociopaths to exit with the profits of wrongdoing while workers and shareholders pay the consequences. We need to stop letting bad people hide behind corporations. Name the people responsible, and hold them responsible.
- maxerickson 4y agoOccasionally dissolving anti-social corporations, instead of preserving jobs and protecting shareholders, would probably give remaining corporations at least a little incentive to keep their activities aligned with the goals of wider society.
- LBJsPNS 4y agoPulling the corporate charter is the equivalent of the death penalty for corporations. This option needs to be exercised far more frequently.
- kerkeslager 4y agoPunishing those who aren't responsible harder doesn't solve the problem. In theory shareholders have the power to prevent this sort of thing, but they don't have the visibility into the daily goings on at a company to see when things like this happen. Likewise, the vast majority of workers had nothing to do with this decision. In a more general sense, I do think it's healthy to let companies fail rather than subsidizing non-working business models. But as a means of disincentivizing bad behavior, it's totally ineffective.
- testemailfordg2 4y agoMoney over people's lives....Countless loved ones lost over 40 years across the world....Probably need a nuremberg styled trial...