David in Normandy wrote:

On 16/11/2011 14:58, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:25:55 +0100, David in Normandy
wrote:

On 16/11/2011 10:19, Warwick wrote:

Brilliant idea. I've always hated that handing them to a pharmacy meant
they would be destroyed. I've also had a problem where a pharmacy gave
me a blank look when I tried to retun them. Presumably because it almost
never happens.

Warwick

Here in France a friend's wife had two lots of some medication costing
800 euros per lot related to cancer treatment. It was paid for by the
state but the medication was found to be ineffective so the second lot
would not be used. On asking what to do with the other unopened lot the
doctor said to throw it away! My friend asked about taking it back to
the pharmacy but the doc said they would just throw it away too! So some
drugs company has been paid a huge amount of money for extremely
expensive drugs that have simply been put into the rubbish. No wonder
the French health system is in financial meltdown.

I've been through the same process after being supplied with a very
expensive drug for MS. It did not work at all so I offered to the
return the remaining unopened packs. The response was "throw away"
from everyone I could find involved with supplying the drug until I
got back to the drug company. They told me not to throw it away
because it could be dangerous. They then sent me a yellow package to
return the drug to them along with the number of a suitably
transporting company.


I can't help wondering if the drug company was concerned that junkies
could find them in the rubbish and suffer ill consequences or if their
intention was simply to check that the seals were unbroken on the drugs
and sell them again. If you got them via the NHS, it is they who should
really take the benefit not the drugs manufacturer. I suppose there is
always the danger that someone could tamper with drugs and return them
maliciously. I guess the best solution all round is not to over
prescribe in the first place, especially with expensive medication that
is simply being tried for effectiveness on the patient.

In my early years as an IT bod (1997-ish). I worked for a year at the
development site in Weybridge that SmithKline Beecham ran. That year was
(really well paid) a highlight of what drugs companies consider
important. The 'pilot plant' was contained in its own concrete surround.
Leakage into the ground was *not* allowed even when they were just
testing how to manufacture a new toothpaste. Some of the labs were
pretty much sealed. On one of their sites I had to wear a fully
contained suit to go and work on a PC in a class 5 lab.

I learned a lot from them and have learned other stuff since.

Chucking medicines down the toilet is common and a problem. Diluting it
out is a damned good way to develop resistant organisms. Anti-biotics
can cause big problems for sewage plants too.

Even putting them in the bin can be a risk if they end up in landfill.
The packaging will eventually degrade and the local bacteria will have a
go at it. Maybe a small amount will be able to cope. Bacteria are able
to put 'new' code into small bits of DNA called plasmids. Bacteria of
other species can pick up and sometimes use 'foreign' plasmids.

TB is on the rise again. The new variants have quite a bit of resistance
to the common medicines.



*Speculation*

Anthrax is pretty common in the ground. A couple of mutations would
allow it to infect more easily. It is also *fairly* easy to treat (if
you catch it soon enough. Fancy seeing a form of Anthrax that tranmits
easily and is resistant to medicines?

*end*

We've already got SARS, MRSA and a few other resistant bacteria. Finish
your course even if you feel better (As I will with the Amoxicilin I
started today) and dispose of anything your GP tellsyou to stop properly.

Warwick