4 ms·

Interesting counterpoint is that a judge recently lambasted the entire body of scientific evidence linking ranitidine (Zantac) to cancer and tossed all the case

Interesting 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 ago
Judges: people who are famously experts in pharmacology
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
slowmovintarget 4y ago
Except... you still shouldn't use it because it's an anticolinergic linked to dementia in old age, just like Benedryl.
- EarthLaunch 4y ago
  Thank 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...
  - avereveard 4y ago
    Ugh, imodium too.
    - EarthLaunch 4y ago
      Yes :( luckily it may be okay, being in the category “Possible anticholinergics include those listed with a score of 1”.
- refurb 4y ago
  So are most antihistamines. Everything will kill you, no need to get worked up about the infinitesimal risk.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    Most later generation ones can't cross the blood brain barrier.
    - refurb 4y ago
      They can cross the blood brain barrier, but just not as much. https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7260/572.1 https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7260/572.1 17% vs 77%
KennyBlanken 4y ago
The judge did not make conclusions about "the entire body of scientific evidence", only the evidence presented to them. Nor did they make conclusions on whether contaminates in Zantac were cancerous. She concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zatnac caused the plaintiff's cancer. And that does not mean that the evidence doesn't exist - if the plaintiff's attorneys failed to present a sufficient legal case, that doesn't mean the science is wrong or doesn't exist. Further, one judge is not an arbiter of whether science is sound or not. In fact, the American legal system is infamous for its persistent reliance on fraudulent forensic techniques even well after there's widespread consensus that they're unreliable if not outright fraudulent. Polygraphs, writing analysis, fiber analysis, hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, drug-sniffing dogs...all have long been found to be far less reliable than courts treat them to be. The latter is probably the most egregious example, with the Supreme Court agreeing that such dogs are actually worse than a coin flip in terms of correctly indicating a "hit" on drugs...and then shrugged and said dogs were still a valid legal basis for further, more invasive searching.

kevviiinn 4y ago

Judges: people who are famously experts in pharmacology

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

slowmovintarget 4y ago

Except... you still shouldn't use it because it's an anticolinergic linked to dementia in old age, just like Benedryl.

EarthLaunch 4y ago
Thank 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...
- avereveard 4y ago
  Ugh, imodium too.
  - EarthLaunch 4y ago
    Yes :( luckily it may be okay, being in the category “Possible anticholinergics include those listed with a score of 1”.
refurb 4y ago
So are most antihistamines. Everything will kill you, no need to get worked up about the infinitesimal risk.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  Most later generation ones can't cross the blood brain barrier.
  - refurb 4y ago
    They can cross the blood brain barrier, but just not as much. https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7260/572.1 https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7260/572.1 17% vs 77%

KennyBlanken 4y ago

The judge did not make conclusions about "the entire body of scientific evidence", only the evidence presented to them. Nor did they make conclusions on whether contaminates in Zantac were cancerous. She concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zatnac caused the plaintiff's cancer. And that does not mean that the evidence doesn't exist - if the plaintiff's attorneys failed to present a sufficient legal case, that doesn't mean the science is wrong or doesn't exist. Further, one judge is not an arbiter of whether science is sound or not. In fact, the American legal system is infamous for its persistent reliance on fraudulent forensic techniques even well after there's widespread consensus that they're unreliable if not outright fraudulent. Polygraphs, writing analysis, fiber analysis, hair analysis, fingerprint analysis, drug-sniffing dogs...all have long been found to be far less reliable than courts treat them to be. The latter is probably the most egregious example, with the Supreme Court agreeing that such dogs are actually worse than a coin flip in terms of correctly indicating a "hit" on drugs...and then shrugged and said dogs were still a valid legal basis for further, more invasive searching.