Blood thinners Pradaxa & Xarelto exceedingly more dangerous & costly than Coumadin/Warfarin

If you’re presently taking the “blood thinner” medications in this news item, it may be in the best interest of your health, and life, to reconsider and stay with warfarin/coumadin.

At least with warfarin/coumadin, we have an antidote, and it has far fewer risks associated with it.

In short, it has evidence for greater safety.

Here’s the long & short of it:
Deaths associated with Warfarin/Coumadin in 2011 = 72
Deaths associated with Praxaxa in 2011 = 542

There was NO OTHER MEDICINE with such a high rate of death associated with death.

Annual Cost of Medicine: Pradaxa & Xarelto = $3,000
Annual Cost of Medicine: Coumadin/Warfarin = $200

You do the math.

Wanna’ be a statistic?

—

Insight: Top heart doctors fret over new blood thinners

By Ransdell Pierson
NEW YORK | Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:37pm EDT

(Reuters) – For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine.

A sign is seen at the entrance of an anti-coagulation clinic at the Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York May 7, 2012. For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine. Picture taken May 7, 2012. REUTERS/Allison Joyce

But growing complaints of risks and deaths tied to the new crop of drugs have made some top U.S. cardiologists hesitant to prescribe them. Some are proposing a more rigorous monitoring regimen for when they are used.

Most concerns revolve around Pradaxa, a twice daily pill from Boehringer Ingelheim that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2010 to prevent strokes in patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. It was the first new oral treatment for that use since warfarin was introduced in the 1950s.

“The good news is you now have an alternative to warfarin,” said Dr. Alan Jacobson, director of anti-coagulation services at the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system in Loma Linda, California. “The bad news is you can kill a patient as easily with the new drug as you could with the old drug” if it is not handled properly.

“The average patient doesn’t understand anything

Pradaxa & Xarelto: Are they worth the risks & costs?

What dangers lurk ahead for new “blood thinner” medications?

Could we unwittingly be participating in our own destruction?

Not only that, but these new medications are exorbitantly expensive, as well.

Are they worth it in the long run?

Should we continue to use the ready stand-by?

The new meds have no antidote. The old one does.

Too little too late, or too much too soon?

Are we playing with fire?

Only time will tell.

—

Insight: Top heart doctors fret over new blood thinners

6:50am EDT, 14 June 2012

By Ransdell Pierson

NEW YORK (Reuters) – For millions of heart patients, a pair of new blood thinners have been heralded as the first replacements in 60 years for warfarin, a pill whose hardships and risks have deterred many from using the stroke-prevention medicine.

But growing complaints of risks and deaths tied to the new crop of drugs have made some top U.S. cardiologists hesitant to prescribe them. Some are proposing a more rigorous monitoring regimen for when they are used.

Most concerns revolve around Pradaxa, a twice daily pill from Boehringer Ingelheim that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2010 to prevent strokes in patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. It was the first new oral treatment for that use since warfarin was introduced in the 1950s.

“The good news is