Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

fiercepharma.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#11

Post by marcinzm »

hammock wrote: post #7
jjeaff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we aren't just trusting the pharma companies. In the case of COVID vaccines, it is one of the most broadly studied things on the planet at this point. If we had this much money and this many eyes on studying and testing Zantac, I have no doubt they wouldn't have been able to keep the cancer risks secret.

What risks have all those studies found in COVID vaccines?

The big ones where Johnson & Johnson/Janssen had a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome to the point of being effectivelly discontinued. Pfizer and Moderna also have a risk of myocarditis. There's also plenty of other studies covering the various other risks such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/.

Which can all be found after 30 seconds of Googling or simply by paying attention to all the news these got over the last few years.

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#12

Post by themitigating »

ccn0p wrote: post #3

what's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit of fear and suddenly we're supposed to trust their studies and superbowl commercials.

Since the vast majority of medicine produced isn't like this situation how do they have bad track record.

Also each company is independent.

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#13

Post by bogwog »

h2odragon wrote: post #2

Of course they did. People wouldn't buy their shit if they'd said it'd give you cancer. Oh wait. Maybe they would. everything gives you cancer now, doesn't it?

> everything gives you cancer now, doesn't it?

Yes, but only in California

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#14

Post by bsuvc »

It's not just that it causes cancer, but it's that improper storage (heat exposure) increases the risk of it causing cancer, and when informed of that, GSK decided it was not worth doing anything about it.

> GSK's leadership was warned on several occasions about the storage issue, but it opted against making any changes to existing plans.

In a way, this makes it worse, because they could have taken action to limit the risk to people, but chose not to, presumably to save money or to avoid bad publicity.

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#15

Post by ivraatiems »

I used to take ranitidine... one day, it suddenly stopped being available at pharmacies. My physician switched me to famotidine, a similar medication, because there were "supply issues" for the foreseeable future.

That was almost two years ago. This is the first I'm hearing about this. So for all I know, I was exposed to an unknown amount of carcinogen for years without being told anything about it even after that information was discovered.

What's my recourse?

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#16

Post by pdntspa »

ccn0p wrote: post #3

what's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit of fear and suddenly we're supposed to trust their studies and superbowl commercials.

I would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#17

Post by nickff »

ivraatiems wrote: post #15

I used to take ranitidine... one day, it suddenly stopped being available at pharmacies. My physician switched me to famotidine, a similar medication, because there were "supply issues" for the foreseeable future. That was almost two years ago. This is the first I'm hearing about this. So for all I know, I was exposed to an unknown amount of carcinogen for years without being told anything about it even after that in…

>"What's my recourse?"

A lawsuit, like the thousands mentioned in the article.

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#18

Post by slowmovintarget »

monero-xmr wrote: post #5

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-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.

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

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#19

Post by eikenberry »

bsuvc wrote: post #14

It's not just that it causes cancer, but it's that improper storage (heat exposure) increases the risk of it causing cancer, and when informed of that, GSK decided it was not worth doing anything about it. > GSK's leadership was warned on several occasions about the storage issue, but it opted against making any changes to existing plans. In a way, this makes it worse, because they could have taken action to limit th…

I read that it is only carcinogenic if stored improperly, which was one of the reasons it stayed available for as long as it did. The article doesn't seem to counter this idea. Do you have any references on the not heat-exposed risks?

Re: Zantac’s maker kept quiet about cancer risks for 40 years

#20

Post by KennyBlanken »

monero-xmr wrote: post #5

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-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.

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.

Post reply on HN