On Monday, May 21, 2007, the headlines in the U.S. media were about the side effects of the most famous diabetes drug, Avandia, which causes rapid heart disease in 43% of users and death from heart disease in 64% of users. The news drew special attention from the U.S. Congress, which decided to convene a hearing on June 6 to hold people accountable. 5?21’s shock was comparable to the shock of a famous anti-inflammatory painkiller – Vioxx – causing heart disease side effects last September. The news is the result of a study led by the American Diabetes Association and two diabetes experts, Bruce M Psaty (University of Washington) and Curt D Furberg (Wake Forest University), whose study will be published in the June 6 issue of the New England Jounrnal of Medicine, a regular medical mouthpiece. The study will be presented to readers in the June 6 issue of the New England Jounrnal of Medicine, a regular pharmaceutical mouthpiece. The editors have decided that this is an important and life-threatening issue, so they are releasing this news item separately and early. Avandia is an “honored product” of Glaxosmith Kline Plc, a pharmaceutical company that was launched eight years ago. Sales amount to $320 million per year. The drug is used by one million people in the United States and more than 6 million people worldwide. When the media got the news, they looked for answers in three ways. (a) question the FDA, asking them on what basis they evaluated this drug eight years ago. And what was the basis for recommending it for marketing? Were there any post-marketing follow-ups? Why weren’t the serious side effects announced to the people by the FDA? (2) Ask the pharmaceutical companies if they know that their drug can cause heart disease or death in more than half of its users. (3) Ask Congress if it has taken responsibility for oversight. The answer is: (a) The FDA said: “We are understaffed and have limited funds, so it is impossible to track and investigate. It is very helpless! As for the original evaluation of this drug on the market based on the drug company to provide information on their research, to do our requirements, such as: how many animal tests have been done, etc., they did not propose that there will be reports of causing heart disease. So we can only consider and evaluate a new drug based on the information that already exists. There is no better way to do it. (b) Glaxosmith Pharmaceuticals said: A. The information provided in the news about their study, which concluded that 43% and 64% were not correct, our own information shows that the side effects cause heart disease is 30%. This is not much different from the side effects of other commonly used diabetes drugs on the market, such as Metformin and Sulfonylurea (Glyburide). It should not be fired only at us, it is very unfair to us. B. The diabetes presented here is a consuming and stubborn disease of adults, a disease that results in heart disease, blindness (cataracts, green cataracts, etc.), kidney disease, diminished brain and sexual power, tiredness and weakness, gout, and ulcers from the ends of the feet …… The medication we call the treatment of diabetes is only: “control of blood sugar”, hoping that the patient can thus delay the end of the road. It is a well known fact that modern medicine cannot cure diabetes. It is possible that some patients may think that they are safe with medication and have no control over their diet and behavior. In this case, it means that it is not the medication that is bad, but they misunderstand the real effect of the medication. The accelerated onset of heart disease in some patients is not to be blamed solely on the side effects of the medication. C. As for in our social system, we are a company, a business, patients like to use our products, there is nothing wrong with making money legally, and this drug is legally qualified by FDA audit before it is marketed. If we say that our drugs have a lot of side effects, which chemical drugs do not have side effects? (iii) Congress says: We are so concerned about the health of our constituents that we have decided to hold hearings at the earliest possible time after we learn of the news. If we get confirmation, we will immediately recommend to the government that it order a ban on the sale of this drug to protect our people. Many people have expressed their opinions online, some very angry, but most of them, although shocked, are still calm. The fact is that chemical agents are inherently toxic and have serious side effects that cannot be changed and will not be changed. The people themselves must educate themselves that prevention and health care is the smartest way to go. It is important to have sufficient common sense about all chemical drugs and not to follow them blindly and superstitiously at their own peril.