Ty Pennington is seen here shilling for Adderall XR, an amphetamine-based ADHD treatment from the British pharmaceutical giant Shire PLC.
Here, Ty Pennington is pushing Aspirin from Bayer Consumer Care, a unit of Bayer AG.
It appears Ty Pennington, the carpenter who has gained a C-list celebrity status recently through appearances on home improvement-themed reality shows and the male prostitute-inspired attires he dons regularly, has been quite busy recently hawking pharmaceuticals. This is quite understandable really since 1) fronting the interests of pharmaceutical giants is the most time-effective way to cash in on his quickly evaporating semi-celebrity status, and 2) people who watch his show are probably dumb enough to buy medications just because the television tells them to.
Nonetheless, I find it rather morbid that T.P. is pushing Adderall XR, a drug that can cause adverse heart events, including sudden death, while also promoting Aspirin as a “wonder drug” for heart disease risk reduction.
February 20, 2007 at 1:23 am
by gloom · Filed under pharma
Could 2007 be a year of new blockbuster psych meds? If these drugs pass Phase III trials, it could be.
SR 58611 is a beta 3-adrenoreceptor agonist being developed by the French mega-conglomerate sanofi-aventis. It will be the first in this category of antidepressants to hit the market if everything goes as planned. While SR 58611 didn’t induce any statistically significant weight loss, other drugs in the category have shown some potential in this area. A drug that makes you happy and thin: everyone’s going to be popping that like candy.
Neurokinin antagonists - Several drugs in this category are in development. Two that are furthest along in trials are casopitant by GlaxoSmithKline and saredutant by sanofi-aventis. Drugs in this category are thought to work by adjusting levels of Substance P, which regulates mood, anxiety, and pain among other things. There is already one drug in this category already on market (U.S. market, not Canada - Health Canada hasn’t yet approved it), namely the antiemetic Emend (aprepitant) by Merck & Co. Clinical trials on Emend failed to show it is an efficient treatment for depression, and Merck has scrapped plans to market it as such.
Valdoxan from Servier is a selective serotonin antagonist and selective melatonin agonist. The application for this antidepressant has been rejected by E.U. and is pending in the U.S.
Wyeth will almost certainly begin sales of Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), which is a metabolite of Effexor, currently the best selling antidepressant in Canada.
Solvay, Lundbeck, and Wyeth are set to introduce bifeprunox, a selective serotonin/dopamine partial agonist, pending approval from FDA. This will be the second drug in this category of atypical antipsychotics after Abilify from Otsuka and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.
AstraZeneca will introduce Seroquel SR (quetiapine), a once-a-day, sustained release version of Seroquel. Seroquel, which has been used for treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania, has been a no-no for severly affected patients because multiple dosings were required throughout the day to maintain a high level of quetiapine in the system around the clock.
Gabaxadol is a new sleep-aid being tested by Lundbeck and Merck & Co. This drug, upon approval, could be scheduled in U.S. as other GABA-A agonists such as Ambien and Lunesta are Schedule IV.
On the ADHD front, Shire will be introducing Connexyn (guanfacine), which was originally approved as an antihypertensive. It will be the first ADHD drug in its category and the second non-stimulant ADHD drug after Strattera (atomoxetine) from Eli Lilly.
So how long will it take until you are able to beg your doctor for a prescription for these drugs? Assuming the drug companies want to sell them in Canada (Abilify is not available in Canada because Bristol-Meyers Squibb fears once the drug goes on sale in Canada where prescription drugs are price controlled, they will no longer be able to charge an obscene $9 per tablet in the U.S.), it will take anywhere between 2 and 5 years. Drug companies usually submit an application in Canada after FDA approves it, and it takes Health Canada up to three years to review the application.
If the drug isn’t available after 5 years, what gives? This usually means:
The drug company doesn’t want to sell them in Canada because it fears re-importation back to the U.S., or
Health Canada rejected the application for sales.
It’s not possible to find out which is the case without a spy in the drug company because Health Canada, unlike the FDA, doesn’t tell the public what drugs they are currently reviewing for market approval and what drugs they have rejected. Health Canada only reports the number of application they are currently reviewing and what drugs they decided to approve. That is, the drug approval process in Canada is completely non-transparent.
Is Marie Antoinette the best movie of 2006? Not really. But, is it the most culturally significant? Definitely so. I’ll explain why.
Marie Antoinette is a wholly new kind of film: an autobiographical picture masquerading as a period drama. The aspects of the queen’s life that make it on the screen are the ones Sofia Coppola experienced herself (growing up in a celebrity family, having to carry the family’s aspirations on her shoulders, awkwardness caused by father’s extra-marital affairs, difficult marriage, her own extra-marital affairs, etc.) and the ones that are so significant she cannot possibly ignore without breaking the pretense of a historical picture (e.g. the storming of the Versailles).
In other words, the movie is about what Coppola felt about Marie Antoinette, not what the queen of France actually was. It is so true to the vision of the director to the point where historical accuracy, which the reigning period picture dogma dictates must come first in making of such movies, is respected only when it is not in conflict with the director’s vision.
Moreover, it is refreshing in that the film presents a revisionist and reactionary interpretation of history, but there is absolutely no political motivation or context to it. Breaking away from the notion that a serious movie is supposed to inform, inspire, or convince the audience, it is a total cinematic transgression.
While Marie Antoinette is not Coppola’s best work (Lost in Translation was a much better movie), it is her most daring and has the set the bar much, much higher for other daring directors.
February 7, 2007 at 9:18 pm
by gloom · Filed under books, pharma
I’ve been flipping through Amy Sedaris’ new book I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence last couple of days. In the chapter about accommodating sick guests, Sedaris instructs the reader to replace herbal craps in the medicine cabinet with stuff that actually works, namely scheduled prescription drugs Adderall, Valium, and Xanax. She also says it’s not a good idea to steal a sick friend’s controlled substances by which I presume she really means “go for it!”
That got me thinking. I’ve been crazy (clinically) for more than a decade and has been on pretty much every single first-line antidepressant there is, yet only scheduled drug I got is Ativan, which is only a CDSA Schedule IV drug. And, I only got five 0.5mg tablets!
Perhaps I should start faking suicidal ideation and see if my psychiatrist will inject me with ketamine.
“Hostile Acts” by Tad Friend. Published on newyorker.com and presumably also in print.
I was so fucking impressed with this article after I read it for the first time. Who other than a critic for a magazine as sharp as The New Yorker could observe that what Sarah Silverman really does through her offensive jokes is holding a mirror against the audience (metaphorically) and mocking their latent bigoted beliefs (also metaphorically)?
However, at another glance, the article proved to be rather disappointing. Take the last two sentences from the third paragraph counting up from the bottom:
His arrival reveals the fractures in the group—Sarah despises him, and Steve and Brian don’t even bother to be polite—and we realize that all of them are fundamentally loners who grew up in front of the TV. They enjoy bantering, as people on TV do, but they aren’t up for shouldering one another’s burdens.
The article blames the characters’ antisocial predisposition on “gr[owing] up in front of the TV” and being “loners.” This notion is not supported by the rest of the article, nor is it supported by the content of the show (as I watched it). In addition, to my knowledge, there is no scientific proof that this link exists. So in other words, what the fuck?
It’s not yet being broadcast in Canada though. The homeless man in the clip is Zach Galifianakis who I honestly don’t find funny but like anyways because he seems to know all the right people (he’s kinda like a male version of Janeane Garofalo).
One can only hope Comedy Central won’t kill this show prematurely like it did previous attempts to break away from the traditional sitcom format such as Stella and Strangers With Candy.
After spending several hours cyberstalking analyzing the situation on Waterloo Facebook network, I’ve become quite convinced that it is packed full of insane/retarded/clueless people. I will be exploiting them for cheap laughs in coming weeks, so stay tuned.
