Customer Reviews for

Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 9, 2008

    Extracting medical knowledge from advertising

    In 'Overdosed America' Dr. John Abramson is mainly concerned with accuracy of information about prescription drugs and about medical devices and procedures in the United States. He shows how drug and device makers manipulate information to present their products favorably. Dr. Abramson leverages experience in public health policy, closely analyzing FDA fast-track approval of painkillers including Celebrex in 1998 and the now withdrawn Vioxx in 1999 'pages 23-38' and NIH revisions to cholesterol guidelines in 2001 'pages 129-148'. For those cases, Dr. Abramson provides detailed readings of published studies, showing how drug benefits were promoted and hazards minimized. * * * * * * * * * Dr. Abramson's most egregious example concerns hazards of Vioxx. A key report about Vioxx appeared November 23, 2000, in the New England Journal of Medicine, then as now edited by Dr. Jeffrey Drazen. It included information about potential hazards. An apparently authoritative review article about Vioxx and Celebrex appeared August 9, 2001, in the same journal, with updated hazard information. The latter article said increased incidence of cardiovascular events associated with Vioxx 'may reflect the play of chance.' From data published in the latter article Dr. Abramson found that the cardiovascular hazard from Vioxx was statistically significant, unlikely to represent chance occurrences. However, FDA action on the information was delayed until September, 2004, when Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market because of its cardiovascular hazard. On December 8, 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine published a belated 'Expression of Concern' saying authors of the November 23, 2000, article had omitted data which they then possessed, showing a greater incidence of cardiovascular events. * * * * * * * * * Writing before the 2005 disclosure, Dr. Abramson was incensed. Poring over information made available to the public by the FDA, he had already found that the FDA knew of a substantial cardiovascular hazard when Vioxx was approved. Members of the medical community had little access to this knowledge, unless willing to spend hours in background research as Dr. Abramson did, and the general public knew even less. Articles appearing in a major medical journal had promoted benefits of Vioxx and minimized hazards. Dr. Abramson reports pressure from his patients to prescribe Vioxx, inspired by advertising. He accuses 'commercial medical research' of 'rigging medical studies, misrepresenting...results' and 'withholding...findings' 'page xvii'. * * * * * * * * * Dr. Abramson's proposed remedy is a new federal agency 'to protect the public's interest in medical science' 'page 250'. It would set standards for 'medical research,' oversee development of 'clinical guidelines,' and initiate research 'when important scientific evidence was lacking.' While describing this new agency, Dr. Abramson does not say but appears to mean by 'medical research' mainly 'clinical trials' for prescription drugs and medical devices, not the basic research programs sponsored by the NIH and other agencies. The key power of the new agency over prescription drugs and medical devices would be certifications that clinical trials met its standards. * * * * * * * * * Dr. Abramson makes three more general recommendations to improve health care: a 'rebalanced' 'mix of physicians,' financial rewards to health care providers for 'improving the health' of their patients, and 'adequate, stable funding' of the FDA and NIH, replacing [prescription drug and medical device] 'industry money' 'pages 255-256'. Dr. Abramson does not provide guidance for making such changes. Instead he calls for 'courageous leadership' from someone else, inviting 'public hearings' investigating the Celebrex and Vioxx approval processes and investigating 'commercial bias in the 2001 update to the cholesterol guidelines.' * * * * * * * * * Despite the intensity of his investigations, Dr. Abramson does not seem t

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1