Veteran Lab Rats: Have you experienced....

[eli1287]

any long-term adverse health effects from doing studies?

I'm in a $9,200 six-month investigational drug study (for lupus) at right now, and it might be my final one because I worry about long-term effects. Been doing drug studies for only a year (five since Dec. 2015).

[ac]

I have done nearly 30 studies over 5 years and have no noticeable long term effects. I have had no bad effects from a study drug that lasted beyond the end of a study. The worst thing that has happened to me in a study was when a tech hit a nerve during a blood draw. I had shooting pain down my arm that took months to heal but is all good now. I have talked to many labrats who have done studies for a decade or longer with no known long term adverse effects. There is always a risk but it's a small one.

[pharmalady]

Been doing about 5-7 studies a year for 10 years now. No long term effects that I'm aware of. I do have a terrible memory, but I had that even back in my teen years. That's not to say I've never had horrible TEMPORARY side effects while actually on a study. But they always go away.


Edit: Totally forgot that I DID have a long-term side effect once. The drug was dosed via injection into the abdomen. I don't remember what it was though. Anyway, my side effect was pain in my left hip. That lasted about 9 or 10 months.

[brandon]

No.

[subject]

A migraine that lasted for about 9 months after dosing and short term memory problems but then again I had some short term memory problems (not too bad) before but this med seemed to exacerbate them. No more headaches but my short term memory got slightly better but not as good as before dosing, but then it may not have been from the medication.

[veteran2]

The only really dangerous ones are phase one studies. Those pay well but to me sound risky to your health as they are powerful drugs that are just being introduced to humans.

[puntkicker]

(EDIT: I went off slightly on Big Pharma here.  I worded things in a way I wish I hadn't, and re-worded them to be a bit less confronatational, as it isn't my aim to upset anyone).

One member not long ago mentioned a Parexel study on a cancer drug, saying it would permanently change your ECG readings after a single dose. When I asked repeatedly where that information came from, I was ignored.  That didnt stop other people from completely ing into it. 

Even though we have one or 2 people trolling the board with scare tactics and wild claims and a refusal to provide information on them(which a number of gullible readers fall for, as evidenced by their replies), there ARE REAL dangers with certain drugs.

Personally, I make sure to get the name(or code letters/numbers) of every drug and do a bit of research on it beforehand, to see if I have a good feel about it. I'm not suggesting everybody do this, but I'm just saying it's a choice I make.

I mean people...have you not heard of drugs the FDA has APPROVED(made it through all 3 phases) that people not only have bad effects from, but DIE from? Here you go, NBC news, not some "exotic" source(though they often are more true than the establishment MSM) www.nbcnews.com/id/6192603/ns/health-arthritis/t/report-vioxx-linked-thousands-deaths/

If FDA approved drugs are linked to thousands of deaths, and how many have terrible side effects after making it through THREE phases of trials, you have to realize that the PHASE ONE(which is mostly what we do, NO?) has much higher odds of having negative effects. It's all a matter of perspective. We have what, maybe a couple dozen who actually post on occasion, VS the 100s of "guests"(lurkers) who dont even sign up, let alone speak....or the other 97% or whatever of participants who arent even aware of this board?

To shorten my point, while you may hear some stories in this thread, it's not even the tip of the iceberg. Who on here can say if their liver is functioning 17% less because of drug A? I mean they may not even be aware of it, let alone assign the cause to a study drug. And if they do a ton of studies and eventually notice, they'd likely have no idea which one caused it.

In one of my VERY early posts as a beginner on here, I was called "picky", I think by someone I actually like and respect. So be it. Read the article I provided for an approved drug, and consider how many of the non-approved drugs may have side effects. Ask yourself how you'd even know if soing might pop up later. I'm not trying to scare anyone, I am just trying to get people to use proper logic and see things as they really are, before they make these choices that some of us more desperate people make. If you're desperate like some of us, it's understandable, but I don't wish to promote this to anyone without them having a full understanding that they are indeed playing a form of Russian Roulete where the bullets are more quiet and slowly-acting.  If anyone feels otherwise, let me know.

I mean, how many of you can actually notice Tylenol(an approved drug) destroying your liver when you take it and report it as a side effect on here?  If that doesn't illustrate my point that these posters not noticing anything after the studies doesnt necessarily mean anything, I am not sure what will.  Sure we're taking these drugs on a shorter term than some things may take to kick in, but there is also the possibility of a cumulative effect.

I appreciate the original poster for asking this question, as well as everyone who answered.  I hope more folks will answer.  Myself, I am relatively new, and am thankful I havent noticed anything.  I hope that I stay healthy until I quit(like many drug users say, lol) and I wish the same for the rest of you.  Others on here have pointed out that they arent particularly pleased with how Big Pharma presents these concerns, and I wanted to do my part to make sure folks know what theyre getting into.  Who knows, maybe the pay for the risk will eventually increase, being they don't make billions in revenue without folks like us.  That said, FDA bureacracy can be cut as well, getting the drug to the market sooner for folks who need it.  I want to be clear that they aren't always the bad guy.    I think it's certainly feasible study participants can do this for a length of time and be fine, I just wouldnt feel right if I let those new to it take it lightly.