Wow. It's to make a buck. From the manufacturers to the government, its about money, not the people . I don't trust any of them.

For me I am not going to take any of them to replace bone loss. None of them are good they will not cure osteoporosis so why put additional crap into our bodies. We have or all ready had that. Yes to get rid of or possibly get rid of our breast cancer but what other damage is going to be done in the future. It's great there trying to come up with some good beneficial drugs but do the trial studies for these drugs correctly and report the side effects bad and good. Not just the good to get that drug on the market. Then years later they play dumb oh we didn't know about that kind of adverse affect. Yes they did and just choose not to address it. Also the patient and doctor are suppose to report bad reactions of a drug. The empty hole again.

Probably not Susan. The criteria is that a medication is worth using. That's one of the reasons why our cancer drugs can be so toxic. The FDA does their best to approve drugs that are as researched as possible but the best test is long term use in combination with all possible drugs, comorbidities, and living situations and that's just not possible to do. Fortunately we have an adverse drug reporting system so that if the FDA establishes that a drug is not safe enough to be worth using they pull it. There has been talk of cutting funding to or downright closing federal agencies like the FDA and that's why it's so important to vote to keep that from happening. The FDA actually protects us from big pharma. They are not perfect and it's important to encourage them to always do better as we know better but we need regulatory agencies of all kinds.

Good Morning 🌅. Thank you Sue10 for much information. Thank you JoyceGerber didn't know about trying to get rid of FDA. Glad I never had to take Fosamax and I'm going to keep my eyes open about FDA. God bless us all.🙏😊🌹

I don't know which is worst, the drug companies or the FDA.

The federal litigation stretches back to 2008, and has now been dismissed and revived twice. All of those decisions have hinged on the issue of federal preemption - whether the federal law governing what pharmaceutical companies are required to put on drug labels overrides, or preempts, state law claims that the label fails to warn consumers.
Merck has argued that it does, saying that in 2009 it proposed adding a warning about femur fractures but was initially rejected by the FDA. The warning was eventually added in 2011. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/court-...