My Life on this planet.

Medicines and vaccines, always an assessment between benefits and risks as explained in the Guardian ; I've written before in great length about the development, approval and safety follow-up of any possible risks (see Pharmaceutical companies need to earn money to improve their products , Codeine as an example how product information of medicines continue to change , Generic drugs - and the cost to develop the real stuff and an older post that explains the origins of the important regulation Thalidomide - And the apology that angered its victims .  As the pandemic resulted in large numbers of people either death or severely ill for months while other people don't even show symptoms when they test positive for SARS-CoV-2, we were lucky that the scientific knowledge but also pharmaceutical companies are much advanced. The result: a speedy development of a number of vaccines. Of course, many people are unsure about these vaccines and have questions, certainly when you know that ...

This is an older text (from around 2013-2014) that I didn't publish earlier, among other reasons because my internet was down and afterwards the moment was gone, hence some links to older articles. But now it seems to be another moment to publish the updated article as part of my miniseries about the pharmaceutical sector to show it is much more than "only for the money" although I acknowledge there are excesses. As a reminder:  - The first article was about the obligations pharmaceutical companies have to continue to monitor the safety of their products after commercialisation and if needed companies must update the product information, a cost for the companies.  - The second article described how the product information of codeine-containing products had major updates long after it was first used because new data became available as a result of its use in clinical practice and because it can interfere with  new drugs.  -  This third article describes the pr...

This article is a follow-up of my previous article to illustrate how the product information of medication is never final but pharmaceutical companies continue to update the information to be sure healthcare professionals and patients can trust that the information is up-to-date and medications are safe to use.  When companies want to make changes or government medicine agencies tell them to do so, companies must submit dossiers to these agencies and pay for the assessment of the suggested changes and after their approval, the updated product information will be published on the website of medicine agencies but also printed in the leaflet that is enclosed in the packaging of the medication. And yes, civil servants working at those agencies declare each year that they have no conflicts of interest and thus are independent from the companies to work in the interest of society.   Codeine can be taken as example of what happens after medications receive their authorisation...

Recently, the trial of bosses of newspapers from the Murdoch group ended and all except one person were found not guilty. OK, the worst offender, the News of the World, does no longer exist and a number of smaller fish were already convicted while it seems millions of pounds are already paid to victims of the hacking (although they may start having to fear that they may have to return some money now newspapers may claim the court proved them to be innocent. Likewise, BP, the company responsible for the Deepwater disaster, started to claim they paid too much to some victims. Because, mercy they don't know, they know only profits). When the hacking became public a few years ago, public outrage was big, not so much because celebrities were targeted because many people like to know what celebrities do as the latter earn money being famous and thus the public loves to know about any of their (mis)behaviour. No, outrage was mainly because ordinary people were targeted who had suffered...

Mr Tony Blair , such an imposing figure. Just over twenty years ago he rose to power and became one of the most celebrated politicians in the UK, that is until the Iraq war destroyed his legacy for many people. Here, I list what I remember that were his important achievements but also his present work and why I think people no longer like him and how he could response by becoming a low-key but still important figure. However, some defend his good policies . The past and his achievements After becoming New Labour leader, Tony Blair won three elections and for a good reason: he had good ideas and came after a long period with the Tories in power (and their time in power was so disastrous that even after more than a decade in opposition they still didn't manage to regain a majority and had to form a coalition government). Only because someone wanted his job, PM Blair had to stop being the elected British PM (although maybe there was a secret deal that needed to be honoured)...