Drug companies legally have to report all side effects people have experienced after taking that drug. Severe reactions are highly unlikely otherwise the drug would be banned. Plus the American suing culture means everyone has to cover their backs, one weird example is in LA they have signs warning people that they may or may not contract cancer from the paint used in area. The paint hasn't been proven to induce cancer but because it might they have to give a warning so it doesn't back fire on them.

Does the sign also say that the sign itself "might" be the hiding place of a poisonous spider nest and therefore you may possibly in the future be attacked by these poisonous spiders on approach of the sign in question? Or does that not count :P

Tut, your comment reminded me of this:

http://brainsonfire.com/blog/wp-cont...arp-edges1.jpg :lol:

People need the right drugs for the right health issues. So if this is matched up properly, then yes it is worth it.
IF someone is prescribed some drugs that risks outweight what is being treated, then they have been proscribed the wrong drugs and it's not worth it. This isn't really about the drugs, it's about giving people the right drugs for their health issues.

This I know, what I meant was that while perscription drugs may try to help alleviate minor pains and aches all the way too major health concerns some of their side effects are downright scary. Now I am not saying that I am against all uses of perscription drugs, in fact I have used quite a few (I'm sort of a clutz) but sometimes I just don't feel like taking the chance. Take for example this Latisse product. You apply it to the base of your eyelashes and it in turn helps to grow longer and darker eyelashes. But some of the side effects include darkening of the skin around the eyes, abnormal hair growth from misapplication, permanent brown iris pigmentation, and possible blindness. And yes I know this is not a life saving drug like blood thinners, blood clotters, and heart beat regulators. But it is still a perscription with dangerous side effects.

All I mean is that the perscription drugs for cosmetics, and other slight life enhancers is getting out of hand. I have no problem whatsoever with other perscriptions if they are used with careful considersation and physician directed use.

I understand what you are saying the labels are scary and I never thought you were against prescription drugs :)

If the symptoms were wide spread and common then the drug would be banned. Secondly the drug company would also have to consider misuse i.e if you squeezed the whole tube of eye lash cream into your eye then you would probably go blind; or you took an OD of sleeping tablets you might die. Bad reactions do happen but it can happen with anything.

@Tutela and Keyori

It's like the stupid warnings you get on cleaning products saying 'Not for human consumption'. The most random warning sign I have ever seen was this huge angry red sign in the ladies toilets of this cafe, that read- ‘WHEN ALARM SOUNDS PERSONEL ARE TRAPPED IN WALK IN-FREEZER’

Lol you'd be surprised how stupid people can be. I once heard of a million dollar law suit against McDonalds where a man scalded himself on his newly purchased coffee and won because the fast food chain had neglected to put "Caution beverage is hot" on the side of the cup it was served in.

1) It was a 79-year-old woman.

2) There was a warning on the cup; the jury ruled that it was not large enough. Any sources you see that maintain that there was no warning are incorrect.

3) The coffee gave the woman third degree burns that were so severe that she required skin grafts. She continued medical treatment for two years.

4) McDonalds intentionally served it too hot for consumption so that dine-in customers would be less likely to ask for refills. Their policies mandated that it be stored at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. That's just a hop, skip, and a jump from BOILING.

5) The settlement was less than $600k I believe, although she initially asked for almost $3mil. While still in court, even the judge thought the amount she was asking for to be outrageous and had reduced it to $640k.

You can find the court docket here. The case number is D-202-CV-93-02419.

It seems the case is no longer in the system, as it was prior to 1997.

You can still find details here, however.