General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Pharmaceuticals Came To Be The 4th Leading Cause Of Death In America
Collective Evolution
November 20, 2013
by Lisa Bloomquist
Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death in America. (1) People know this to be true, they know it to be appalling, but its still seen as incomprehensible and absurd. How could medicine hurt so many people? We all know that side-effects happen, but they are thought to be rare. They must be rare, right?
We all know some good, kind, generous, thoughtful doctors who want nothing more for their patients than health and happiness, so they certainly arent giving their patients drugs that hurt them, are they? We know that the FDA is a federal bureaucracy, so it must be too restrictive of the pharmaceutical industry, right? And the FDA is supposed to protect consumers, so were as safe as we can be, right? And people can sue, so the legal system must be keeping the bad aspects of the medical system in check, right?
All of these questions, and many more, bring up some cognitive dissonance for people when theyre faced with the fact that prescription drugs, used as prescribed, kill an inordinate a number of people. It brings up the questions - How do prescription drugs get to be the 4th leading cause of death in America? How does that happen?
Here is a tale of how prescription drugs, used as prescribed, kill people.
MORE
- See also: Harvard University - The Lab @ Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics -- Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted
lunasun
(21,646 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)eat clean and I maintain although one ankle is never gonna be right for lifting heavy objects
10 pills
In hospital ER thinking I was having a stroke -on off blindness, head stabbing pain , shaking and sudden lack of ability to walk and the fear on my kids faces that night
Fuck Pharma most of all for the fear they put in the kids
3 yrs of loss of a "full" parent to pill induced illness and income loss too.
Over the 3 +years about 25 side effects all took their turn on my body
So many have died
J&J, Bayer, FDA all know it too
Were you in the military? I always felt when i had the chemically induced anxiety and insomnia how bad that would be on someone at war . Although I felt sorry for myself ,I grieved for soldiers experiencing this in war. That is why I included the air force link above
I also learned a lesson though
I always thought people who had anxiety could " work it out" but it was something I could not control and having been a very calm and carefree type I saw the other side for awhile . It is all gone now and I am back to my calm self who hits the pillow and sleeps but I have more understanding of others and their issues now
3 yrs of my life physical and mental issues from 10 pills and then less and less cycling although I got a slight one about a year ago
and I am one of the lucky ones !!!
It did not go away after stopping the pills as I am sure you know
Like one person said when you read the possible side effects you never think that they mean you could get them ALL and doesn't go go away!
Have you seen the film by a director who was hit by the pills?
Listen to the airline pilot in that film
Pharma was a danger to all the people he was flying on a commercial plane
not just to the person taking the pills
or the case of the person who murdered his family
The FQ community was a twisted blessing to have others to relate to and get info but as fractured a DU at least a while back
. Misery really does love company......
Johnson & Johnson / Bayer have blood on their hands for many of their products There is some birth control they both had out
about that was a big story too
$$$$$ rules the FDA although I am thinking someone will jump in to defend them and they are life saving in some scenarios BUT they should not be marketed like candy for common problems where less of a big gun drug could have been used but that would cost less .........$o market the big gun for every ill
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)- If it can prevent bacterial DNA from unwinding and duplicating, it has the potential to do this to any DNA. And Fluorine is poison. In all its forms. Period.
[center]''Let food be thy medicine, and let thy medicine be food.'' ~Hippocrates[/center]
Cranberry Juice Prevents Urinary Tract Infection
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)antibiotics have been so over-prescribed..............
louis-t
(23,295 posts)play out over and over: A friend has a sniffle and runs to the doctor, who prescribes antibiotics. I ask "Why are you taking antibiotics? You have a cold, and they don't work on viruses."
Without exception, the reply is, word for word, EXACTLY the same: "Oh, the doctor said I have an upper respiratory infection."
lunasun
(21,646 posts)as a first choice to doctors ( use the big gun first not last ) There are plenty of less harmful and older antibiotics being pushed aside as they are cheap/generic and not as profitable
"" although I am thinking someone will jump in to defend them and they are life saving in some scenarios BUT they should not be marketed like candy for common problems where less of a big gun drug could have been used but that would cost less .........$o market the big gun for every ill ""
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)not everything has to die when we are looking for ways to kill infections.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)That is quite scary.
I experienced many bladder infections growing up. I was hospitalized ten times before the age of 12; and I was in and out of the doctor at least 100 times. I was on antibiotics during most of my childhood. I remember taking UTI meds. I will have to do some research...
Ino
(3,366 posts)and I had problems with my ankles, elbows, thumbs, wrists, and especially my knees. I was not sure my knees would hold me up. I had to give away my dog because I couldn't walk her. Happily, I recovered after several months, though one elbow is still very sore (two years later).
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Very bad stuff.
Big Blue Marble
(5,093 posts)And I am already aware of this major crisis of health care.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...is not insuring affordable medical access, nor creating more medical innovation, nor free-market pharmaceutical invention, but rather the degradation of the environment, the food, the water and the air that we breathe.
Since World War II over 90,000 chemicals compounds issuing forth from chemical companies, car/toy/plastic-crap manufacturers, agricultural/fertilizer/pesticide companies and all those ''silver-bullet'' drugs we've come to expect from pharmaceutical companies have been approved for use by the various governmental regulatory agencies, few of which were ever tested for their impact upon human health.
They've ejected pollutants and their by-products into the air and into the water. And we ourselves become a major source of chemical pollution as we excrete the prescription drugs everyone takes back into the environment causing hermaphrodite fish among other environmental tragedies.
Endocrine-disruptors (BPA, covers all the plastic in the milk cartons in the fridge, or the white lining in that can of tomato sauce you just poured, or that plastic bowl you just nuked some BPA into the food you warmed up in the microwave oven) are a known particular threat, but its become so ubiquitous existing in and/or on almost everything we use. Thus making it impossible to remove from the public sphere without major upheaval and demand and huge cost to the profit line. Something TPTB wish to avoid at all costs.
- That's what's making us all sick. We keep trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and avoiding the problem itself.
Because we're afraid to confront those who are creating it.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)about BPA and migraine. Just saying.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)http://vimeo.com/34176018
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the older versions that the Drug Companies don't make money off of because they've gone Generic. Many of us (without allergies to the older drug components) would be fine for most simpler needs than to hit us with the New Drugs which are re-doctored to get around patents that expired to create a "New Drug" that might have other components that have side effects that that can be dangerous.
If I had some flesh eating bacteria or some infection known to be resistant to all earlier treatments I'd try a new treatment if I was in such bad shape that it was last resort.
But, so many of these New Drugs are just doled out for treatment when older drugs could work better with less side effects.
Thanks for the post. I'm not against new drug discoveries but, the research these days is too geared to Big Pharma to make money rather than "Best Treatment Practices" that have been reviewed for effectivenes.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)they set their sights on the rest of the world
Drug Company Accused of Bribing Doctors
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131602
Bribery And Corruption In The Pharmaceutical Sector
http://www.financierworldwide.com/article.php?id=11025
GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals
Bribery 'routine' for foreign pharmaceutical firms in China
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23662909
That's just a few from the first page of a search- from the last year.
How soon before not taking these poisons disqualify the high deductible "insurance" everyone now must buy?
It's a totally corrupt system.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)I have no doubt combined corruption here and in China will mean a financial mother load for them in the next decade or so
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)some of the posters on this thread--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024124437 , need to see yours.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Response to DeSwiss (Reply #117)
MattBaggins This message was self-deleted by its author.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I try to be healthy and keep my blood pressure/blood sugars/cholesterol in check because I am afraid that the solutions to these problems are just as lethal as the diseases themselves.
When you listen to the side effects that are rattled off during pharma commercials (and some of these side effects are cancer and sudden death!), it's just ridiculous.
It didn't use to be this way.
Our country has changed. We serve the corporations now. Not the people. So, drug companies are allowed to disseminate toxic substances to us, via an FDA that is stocked with former big pharma employees. It's all about profit now.
All we can do is try to stay healthy for as long as possible--and if we do come down with a condition or an ailment, then we have some tough decisions to make. Not all drugs are bad, but it seems as if these "lifestyle drugs" end up with the worst-possible side effects. They're also the drugs that, years later, we hear are killing people or causing heart disease or other horrible effects.
It's crazy.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)given all the minute-long disclaimers that I have heard on pharmaceutical commercials.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)if the disclaimer is longer than the actual ad, don't bother to ask your doctor if it's right for you.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)ad is 1:31 long, warning starts @ 0:35
Advertising drugs to children during the afternoon news in the middle of a "drug war"?
Priceless.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And the disclaimer was almost exactly a minute long, too!
Priceless, indeed!
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Ask. I dare ya. lololo
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I'd say that any commercialization of healthcare is immoral.
- Profiting from the pain and misery of anyone is just plain fucking sick.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)The ideas and solutions presented in this book will not be discussed in the Major US Media because their advertisers would not be pleased.
Pharmageddon by David Healy Amazon rating: 4.9/5.0
These developments have tied the survival of pharmaceutical companies to the development of blockbuster drugs, so that they must overhype benefits and deny real hazards. Healy further explains why these trends have basically ended the possibility of universal health care in the United States and elsewhere around the world. He concludes with suggestions for reform of our currently corrupted evidence-based medical system.
"This meticulously documented book makes extraordinary claims with far-reaching intellectual and practical ramifications. It is the most powerful critique of the contemporary medical-industrial complex that I know."--Andrew T. Scull, author of Hysteria and Madness: A Very Short Introduction
"This book shines a bright light on the pharmaceutical industry (and American healthcare) in the same way that Silent Spring called out the chemical industry and Unsafe at Any Speed called out the automobile industry. Pharmageddon is Healy's most important book to date. It will make a real contribution toward healing our sick system of pharmaceutical-driven medicine and helping doctors provide better care for their patients."--Elizabeth Siegel Watkins, author of The Estrogen Elixir and On the Pill
Excellent expose
David Healy has written extensively about the pharmaceutical industry, and this book is one of his best. He gives a short history of how drugs became such big business, and why the incentives are wrong for new drug development. Healy is by no means anti-drug, but he objects to the use of too many drugs and of drugs that have questionable value to the patient. Everyone should be aware of the information in this book before filling their next prescription.
http://www.amazon.com/Pharmageddon-David-Healy/dp/0520275764/
The Revolving Door between the FDA and the industry must be closed.
HOW FDA, BIG PHARMA, AND DOCTORS CAUSE INJURY FOR PROFIT
Byron J. Richards, November 4, 2009
...FDA managers act in a revolving door capacity with the various industries they are supposed to be regulating. What FDA mangers actually do is more akin to the activities of a police-force bully. They seek to knock out competition for their friends in Big Pharma, Big Biotech, and Big Food, while acting as the gatekeepers of profits for the chosen few often in disregard of the health consequences.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron187.htm
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Other than a complete planetary makeover, where would you start?
Religion??? That's where I would start.
Science??? I'd say that's where we've been and all we got were pharmacueticals...
I have my own favorite "alternative" that has removed "pain and misery" for almost 50 years and although it is percolating in the mainstream, there are still some discussions that are needed about "commercialization".
I share your political values so I'm torn over the issue when my own governments response to availability is to legislate it into a large corporation, rather than trust it to a small business free market.
.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The potential lies within everyone. Where ''we start'' is the only place where we can, with Unconditional LOVE. Unconditional LOVE is a default position in which we all respect and agree to the right of free will and existence of all others. This is what we've been here for all along. Taking ''life lessons.''
And we've brought the wide variety and the methods of these life lessons onto our selves. The global warming we now talk about is both a cyclical phenomenon on a planetary basis (all the planets in our solar system warm and cool and change), as well as an effect that we enhance through our ignorance forcing onto to a new tipping point. The result? Potential cataclysm -- and from such disasters often comes change. Dramatic change. Evolutionary change.
This evolution will be a slow or as rapid as we make it. Some of these young whippsnappers are taking matters into their own hands, starting communities based in self-sustainability and being in symbiosis with nature. Some have more ambitious plans to change the whole world.
As usual, we'll probably do something in the middle. But change is coming. Change is part of nature and you can't stop it is you wanted to. We've been raised in a system of deprivation and fear. Forcing us to live worrying about eating and having a roof over our heads, all while we live on a planet with more than enough for everyone.
- And so succumbing to our fears, we'd more often prefer the devil we know, to the scary one in the future......
Locrian
(4,522 posts)A lot of what you're describing is similar to Riane Eisler's 'dominator' vs 'partnership' societies. We are of course in a dominiator base system (have been for 3000 years). We can't even recognize it as we have been steeped in it all our lives and everything we know. There is evidence that the earlier societies were *partnership* based and quite advanced in the understanding of the cycles and relationship with the earth.
The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future
Riane Eisler
http://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-History-Future---Updated-Epilogue-ebook/dp/B005Z0IX7C/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386175789&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=riane+eisller+chalice+blade
Locrian
(4,522 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I don't know why, I don't know who's right, but I know that the CDC says that prescription drugs aren't even in the top ten. Unless I'm missing something?
lunasun
(21,646 posts)computer glitch ya know
so then the cases no longer figured in to numbers
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Having used statistics for the better part of my former career, I know they can be made to say what one wills. I don't know who among the sources noted in this article are the most correct, but I have absolutely no faith in any government stats. None. I'll cite them from time to time (as in this case) in order to make a point, but I do so only for the benefit of those who are still tethered to this form of lie. Because for many, it's the only way to get through at all.
- The Harvard piece is the source the article uses for that statement. If you're interested in such tomfoolery, have at it and send Donald W. Light a line.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)itself has a disclaimer at the bottom that the opinions are those of the writer
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It was medics taking the easy way, medics not looking at the formularies and seeing the countraindications, medics and pharmacists not issuing the right warnings. The case, as described, was a series of iatrogenic illnesses culminating in death.
OK, I'm a Brit and so have the NHS; this means that powerful, drugs are not handed out in that way. Because free consultations means that at most 1 weeks supply is given with a review appointment. Most 'scripts are computer printed therefore dangerous interactions and are highlighted on screen and the patient warned. At the pharmacy a label is stuck to the packaging with dosage regimen and a warning about drugs particularly to be avoided, additionally the issuing pharmacist is supposed to verbally warn the patient.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)She had surgery and was put on LASIK. After being released from the hospital to my home she started "feeling funny".
No computer in those days so researched all meds she was on and figured out it was LASIK.
Took her off it and she was back to normal. A week later she had a dr appointment and the dr felt she should continue taking it, putting her on a lower dose.
My mom then went to rehab and the original LASIK dose was given. She died in 3 days.
People are given meds that can be life savers but also killers. Meds are give to prevent reactions caused by the original meds.
It is a vicious circle.
I spent 40 years working in hospitals across America. I take a thyroid pill (downwinder) and that is the extent of my meds.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...from even before the cradle to the grave. In fact future generations may view graveyards holding the remains of people from our time to be toxic waste disposal areas.
- Requiring special permits just to leave a nice floral arrangement of remembrance to someone who lived during ''The Great Poisoning''.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)imbalance. It sounds to me like you actually have a malpractice against the rehab facility
Very sorry for your loss. It was absolutely negligence, and should not have happened
sendero
(28,552 posts)... taking Levaquin and it is was only her careful study on the web that convinced her to drop the stuff after two days.
I have personally taken Levaquin and Cipro without problems.
A few months after my wife's episode, a friend at work was back from recovering from the "flu". He really did not look good. I asked him what was up and he told me that he had the "flu" and his dr has prescribed Levaquin (of course this is idiiotic on its face, no antibiotic will help the flu).
I told him that a substantial number of people cannot take Levaquin without serious side effects. I asked him if he could correllate the way he was feeling now with the onset of taking the drug. At first he kind of looked at me like I was nuts (ok this happens a lot but then he seemed to realize I might be on to something.
He called his dr who told him to stop taking the Levaquin. Within a couple of days he was right as rain.
I do want to be clear here. I BLAME DOCTORS FOR THIS. This drug, in the PDA, is listed as an ANTIBIOTIC OF LAST RESORT. The potential side effects are LAID OUT CLEARLY AND FORCEFULLY. Doctors prescribe a lot of medication without seriously considering the side effects and when they occur (which in the doctor's mind they are not supposed to because they are "rare" doctors often dismiss the possibility the drug is the problem. Doctors need to get a clue about some antibiotics, statins and some anti-depressants/anti-psychotics. THESE DRUGS REQUIRE AN INFORMED patient!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...what we see is a larger picture wherein one part of the society we've allowed to evolve poisons the environment and everything in it for profits. The mining and energy interests dig up the poisons from below, and then begin the process of delivery of their products into our bodies with the help of engineers, chemists and scientists. Many of whom work in or graduated from public universities. With tax dollars. Great return on the 'ol investment, eh?
The manufacturers then get a shot by incorporating these poisons in, spraying them on or adding them to various products we will end up ingesting -- by lathering, laying and/or inhaling it into our bodies (and Rubber Duckies if you still chew on those). Once there, these chemicals run havoc in our bodies. Mimicking other chemicals and generally disrupting DNA function, causing cells to metastasize and our own immune system begin to attack what they were designed to protect.
We are poisoning ourselves with our progress. And you may thank science, greed and our own complacency for it. Without all of us working together and the scientists with their ''pure theory and objectivity'' which ends up allowing them to create weapons of mass destruction which threatens the whole planet. We'd have never made it this far. Because assholes.
- Only to peter-out it would seem......
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Because I'm not seeing anywhere that it's the antibiotic of last resort. Of course adverse reactions are listed, and there's a general warning about possible nerve damage either temporary or permanent, but I'm not seeing anything about it being the antibiotic of last resort. Under the clinical trials information for adverse reactions there's nothing even listed about nerve damage at all, meaning that in tests with over 7537 people that adverse reaction didn't even amount to 0.1% of them.
http://www.pdr.net/pdr-drug-communications/drug-alert/levaquin?druglabelid=271&id=1000005
This is just a bunch of hype. Meds like Cipro and Levaquin aren't causing permanent or even temporary nerve damage to scads of people or it wouldn't be on the market anymore just like other drugs have been taken off the market because of too high a number of people experiencing a serious adverse reaction.
I do agree though that doctors should absolutely tell you with any drug they prescribe what the most common adverse reactions may be as well as allow you to take a different drug that is much less expensive but that would accomplish the same thing. Both my dentist and my vet for my dog do that as well as recommend over the counter drugs that might be taken instead. They also always always always asks me what other drugs I (or the dog) may be taking in case there is an issue with drug interactions. Of al the doctors I've been too that prescribed any meds NONE of them said a single word about what they were prescribing, and because of that I've ALWAYS checked the PDR (my Mom used to be a nurse so we always had the current PDR at home when I lived with my parents) or called the pharmacy and talked to the pharmacist about any drug I was prescribed before I even filled the prescription.
The only antibiotic of the MANY I've tried is Levaquin since it's the only one that I don't get horrible gastric problems with that I can't go to work or school (when I was so young that I was still in school) never mind how disgusting they made me feel. The only thing that sucks about that is that it's expensive as hell, and for 10 years I've had to pay out of pocket - $200 for TEN 500 mg. pills (you'd think if was pure Heroin or something!). That's also DOUBLE what it cost only a few years ago out of pocket and almost triple what it was just before Bush The Younger.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... of course but where we actually read about this is on the web on one of the drug interactions sites. More than one.
I didn't make this up and I'm pretty sure you can find what I am talking about if you look.
As I said, I have taken both Levaquin and Cipro without issues but there ARE a substantial number of people who CANNOT TAKE FLOUROQUINOLONES. That is a fact.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Nothing new about that, and Levaquin and Cipro are hardly the worst for seriously adverse side effects, and the most serious one with fluoroquinolones effects only a very tiny percentage of people. Hell, there's plenty of meds that can actually kill a tiny percentage of people whether on their own or in combination with other drugs, foods or alcohol. Nothing new about that either.
What is a fact is that according to the PDR which is THE go-to reference about any medication is that out of 7537 people less than 0.1% had any of these nerve related side effects, and that's hardly substantial. Because a very tiny number of people out of Lord knows how many have had such an adverse reaction to the fluoroquinolone meds the PDR HAS to list that as a warning, and no where in the Levaquin info in the most current PDR does it say anything about it being an antibiotic of last resort.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. like the "rare but serious" side effects of statins. they are serious, but they are not really all that rare.
We'll just have to disagree on this.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)already pounced on this, proclaiming it to be "woo."
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...since they serve no useful purpose.
And that means any direction you're going in......
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)that you were open-minded, for so long...
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Not me. I didn't say a word about pro-science people because I am one myself.
Also, the researchers at Harvard who conducted this research are pro-science but not pro Big Pharma.
See? It isn't necessarily equivalent, as you always seem to think. And the managers in Big Pharma care more about big profits than about science, as this article demonstrates.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You have proven to be anti-science every step of the way. You love every pseudoscience argument that comes down the pipeline.
I know you will pretend otherwise, and you clearly believe otherwise, but you're wrong. You don't care about science. End of discussion.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #225)
Grateful for Hope This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)[center]Johnny Cannabiseed
[/center]
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Influenza and Pneumonia
Kidney disease
Blood Poisoning
suicide
liver disease
hypertension
parkinsons
homicide
That is right, Advise people who have hypertension or diabetes not to take their meds
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I defy to you show where I or anyone said that.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... Times up!
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)you just took offense at my terminology, of "BS" when listing the top 15 causes of death
but since I am on ignore by you, I will post this for others who may wish to refute that or provide a actuarial source which shows different.
As for your only point, I agree, you never said that people should not take medicines, but again, since I am on ignore, this is for those who do not have me on ignore
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)type I it won't, though a healthy diet for any chronic or potential chronic condition is always a good thing along with exercise
In other words, I mostly agree with your view
CorrectOfCenter
(101 posts)Pharmaceutical companies are the enemy
They promote drug dependency
At the cost of the natural remedies
That are all our bodies need
They are immoral and driven by greed.
Why take drugs
When herbs can solve it?
Why use chemicals
When homeopathic solvents
Can resolve it?
It's time we all return-to-live
With natural medical alternatives.
And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
By definition, I begin
Alternative Medicine, I continue
Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call alternative medicine
That's been proved to work?
Medicine.
So you don't believe
In ANY Natural remedies?
On the contrary actually:
Before we came to tea,
I took a natural remedy
Derived from the bark of a willow tree
A painkiller that's virtually side-effect free
It's got a weird name,
Darling, what was it again?
Masprin?
Basprin?
Asprin!
Which I paid about a buck for
Down at my local drugstore.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Mother Nature spent at least 3 million years evolving hominids. And the last 300,000 evolving homo sapiens. And we've done it all in total symbiosity with our environment. That is why so many plants appear tailor-made for our physical needs and complaints, because we're tailor-made for each other.
We always easily see how a plant develops symbiotically with other animals in order to help it spread their species far and wide. Well, we're animals too. We're no different from a squirrel which plants excess acorns leaving them to germinate. Or a bird who shits out seeds all over the place from the berries its eaten. That's a 2-fer since that way the seed gets a fertilizer coating to boot!
- Since the plants are good for us, we're good for them too. We're using each other.
Then of course, there's Cannabis:
{on edit: I love Tim too!}
G_j
(40,367 posts)The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.
This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government do something about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA.2 Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what safe and effective mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information.3 4 The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge.5 6 Patients are the innocent victims.
Although it now embraces the industry rhetoric about breakthrough and life-saving innovation, the FDA in effect serves as the re-generator of patent-protected high prices for minor drugs in each disease group, as their therapeutic equivalents lose patent protection. The billions spent on promoting them results in the Inverse Benefit Law: the more widely most drugs are marketed, the more diluted become their benefits but more widespread become their risks of harm.
The FDA also legitimates industry efforts to lower and widen criteria prescribing drugs, known by critics as the selling of sickness. Regulations conveniently prohibit the FDA from comparing the effectiveness of new drugs or from assessing their cost-effectiveness. Only the United States allows companies to charge what they like and raise prices annually on last years drugs, without regard to their added value.7
A New Era?
Now the FDA is going even further. The New England Journal of Medicine has published, without comment, proposals by two senior figures from the FDA to loosen criteria drugs that allege to prevent Alzheimers disease by treating it at an early stage.8 The authors seem unaware of how their views about Alzheimers and the role of the FDA incorporate the language and rationale of marketing executives for the industry. First, they use the word disease to refer to a hypothetical early-stage Alzheimers disease that supposedly exists before the earliest symptoms of Alzheimers disease are apparent. Notice that phrasing assumes that the earliest symptoms will become apparent, when in fact its only a hypothetical model for claiming that cognitive lapses like not remembering where you put something or what you were going to say are signs of incipient Altzheimers disease. The proposed looser criteria would legitimate drugs as safe and effective that have little or no evidence of being effective and expose millions to risks of harmful side effects.
<snip>
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Necrosis has set in and the stench has become so persuasive we no longer complain of the smell. ''It's just politics'' is the mantra. How business is done. It's how we all ended up here, of course. No one likes to talk about that part. But I'm afraid all affected limbs and organs must be excised to save the patient. If that isn't possible, we should take the parts that are still good and begin again.
- After we've burned the blueprints from this last debacle......
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)marshall
(6,665 posts)She ultimately died of cancer. Was it undiagnosed from the beginning, or did the drugs somehow cause it? Were the drugs a contributing factor, perhaps weakening her to the point she could not survive the surgery?
The example seems very muddled to me, but perhaps the point is that all such cases are this unclear. If she had cancer from. The start then it is a case of repeated misdiagnosis. If she went to multiple doctors who did not coordinate their findings and treatment that is a fault of the system. But I wouldn't say in this case the drugs caused her death, at least not with the information provided. What I get is that the drugs made her life miserable, especially if her problems were misdiagnosed. In that case she got no lasting benefit but still had to suffer the side effects.
The article certainly identifies a problem, I'm just not sure if the conclusion is valid. Perhaps it is just as much of a misdiagnosis as the example it uses to illustrate its point.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)I'm not sure what you expected. The title of the article is: ''How Pharmaceuticals Came To Be The 4th Leading Cause Of Death In America.''
The author then uses a singular but horrendous example of a woman who was initially diagnosed with a Urinary Tract Infection (curable with cranberry juice) and who ended up dead. The chain of events from one deathly drug to the next -- showing how that happen was clearly laid out. How her health suffered in each step. And how instead of finding out what her health problems were and curing them, they killed her instead. I don't know why it's ''muddled'' for you. The article's author also cited several references and those authors did as well.
So I'm assuming you've exhausted a review of all of those resources provided and you still came up wanting. This wasn't a story about what killed her as much as it is a story about how she managed to survived these grim reapers for so long. Maybe the hope of the author in writing this article is that people will read it and not suffer the same fate. Won't stay ''with it'' long enough for them to kill them.
It's fairly clear to me her death resulted from side effects and possibly the drugs themselves. And having once been in her shoes, I have no doubts whatsoever on how this happens. Also bearing in mind that our corrupt system doesn't allow for the vampires of the medical system and who suck our blood daily, to be exposed except for the most egregious of their crimes.
- There's just too much money on the table.....
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)God you woosters are hell bent on harming people.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)and, in every case (about five times), it took a bit of time (several days), but I was eventually ok.
Think about it. Many so called drugs have natural ingredients re-labeled.
I do stand behind cranberry juice.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but it most certainly cannot cure every UTI.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Especially those in the early stages. And that's obviously better than getting full blown UTI's and having to use antibiotics.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I've never even had one, because I take so much vitamin C.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)UTI's in their early stages can and have been cured by flooding the system with water and cranberry juice. Water or fluids alone doesn't work as well.
No woman who has ever had one will mistake that unique pain. Cranberry juice hasn't headed off every UTI I've ever had, but it's stopped a number of them in their tracks.
marshall
(6,665 posts)Nothing in the story directly ties her death to any specific drug as the leading cause of her death or a contributing factor. Since the story itself is fiction it would have been more illustrative in my opinion to tie it back irrefutably. That is what I was looking for but didn't find. That is what I mean by muddled, because no direct link is identified, although one can assume at the very least that her health was compromised and it was ultimately the strain of the surgery that killed her. In that case I would say the surgery was the leading cause of her death, with the repeated misdiagnoses and side effects from misprescribed drugs being a contributing factor.
And in the research I did dig back to JAMA and find the original 1998 article, which only examines people who are admitted to a hospital for one identifiable time. And there is no mention of the controversy that immediately followed in JAMA about the validity of the interpretation of the data. All generally agreed that a problem was identified, but disagreed about the crunching of the numbers, as in this passage by Dr. Gary Kravitz from Minnesota:
"The results of the meta-analysis by Lazarou et al deserve a reality check. Lumping together voluminous mounds of archaic data with more recent data from a nonrepresentative sample of hospitalized patients and then extrapolating to the entire US patient population can lead to egregious errors. Many minor ADRs go unreported, as suggested by Bates, but I doubt this is true of deaths due to ADRs. It is not possible to sweep that many bodies under the rug. The problem of serious ADRs should not be compounded with erroneous estimates of their mortality. The study by Lazarou et al grossly overestimates the magnitude of this problem."
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)And it is quite clear if you read through the article. The paragraph just ahead of Conclusion:
Humira, Enbrel and other TNF inhibiting drugs CAUSE CANCER. This is well documented and known. The warning labels for both Humira and Enbrel state in a big black box warning that various cancers are associated with use of those drugs. In case it needs to be spelled out, cancer can be deadly. Here is an excellent blog post about how Humira can kill, and how it is marketed http://davidhealy.org/welcome-to-the-humiraverse/ - See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/20/how-pharmaceuticals-came-to-be-the-4th-leading-cause-of-death-in-america/#sthash.UY4Mrbkk.dpuf
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)for all your anti-vaccine, anti-fluoridation, 9/11 Truth, Boston bombing truth, medical woo, conspiracy theory needs.
Sources matter.
Sid
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I can't say I'm surprised.
- Selective rationality seems to be your strong suit.....
''The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational!'' ~Robert Anton Wilson
bemildred
(90,061 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)I saw a post of yours that mentioned you are a Dad? My kids are grown, but even back when, drugs were a last resort for me.
I worked for a company back in the 90's that published journals for doctors and the pharma industry. I didn't like the fact that the public was not informed about possible side effects of drugs at that time - and I made this an issue with my manager. I decided to leave that company for unrelated issues, but now that drug companies have to (1) advertise to consumers, and (2)
they have to let consumers know about the side effects of a particular drug - this is way better than it was back then.
I know you have me on ignore, but I really hope you see this.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Try again.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Here's what it is, since you clearly need to be informed.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)...and routinely denigrate it all as woo, in hopes people will be dissuaded from using their own intelligence to evaluate it.
A deviously clever way to distract attention from the plenteous & persistently pernicious problems of poo* they are pimping.
* unadulterated soul-dead scientific materialism
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)[center]
[/center]
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)At the same time they deride those who question or seek aid outside of big pharma.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...as is the case with most alternative medicines.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Neurosurgeon Voices Health Concerns Over Geoengineering and Chemtrails
Chemtrails Are Happening All Over The World According to Former British Columbia Premier
Geoengineering & Chemtrails: What In The World Are They Spraying? And Why?
The Recent Increase In Chemtrails
The truth is out there!!
Sid
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Interesting.
Sid
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And your attempts to derail the conversation are pathetic.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from Prescription drugs, under the guise of assuming that we here on DU are all too stupid to know how to cross check sources. DUers, and I know this will come as a real shock to you, are more than capable of cross-checking sources without your help.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times, in this thread, the information in the OP is NOT new information and anyone who lives in this country, such as myself, is more likely than not to know of someone who has either died or been seriously harmed by prescription drugs. In my own case I know of two people who tragically died as a result of prescription drugs and one who is disabled for life. This is a SERIOUS ISSUE here in the US.
You have contributed nothing of value to this thread other than attempt to derail it. And the question so many people have about this kind of thing is 'why'?
You have said NOTHING about the issue itself, not a word.
Stop insulting DUers with your assumptions that we are incapable of deciding what to read and what not to read. It is extremely insulting.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)And I would love to read it (and also check to see if its been retracted) if you do.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It can't be wrong!
Orrex
(63,216 posts)If people want to burn their ear candles or drink their yak urine or whatever, I say go for it. But when positive, unsubstantiated claims are made about the efficacy of these "treatments," that's when reasonable critics will raise objections.
It is entirely reasonable to object to unsafe products that are claimed to be safe.
It is entirely reasonable to object to useless products that are claimed to have actual health benefits.
These are not mutually exclusive.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...that it appears to expect that the same sources who now control the current allopathic system to now verify the efficacy of the treatments in a field in which they have a vested interest in their failure. And with us living in a pit of corruption (in case you hadn't noticed), that's probably important in keeping things the way they are and to slime the alternatives as heavily and as often as possible.
- So if it seems I'm casting aspersions upon the so-called reputation of medical science, then you may consider them aspersed.
{on edit}: BTW, maybe you could also check into these guys at the FDA. They don't seem too big on ''efficacy.''
FDA lets drugs approved on fraudulent research stay on market
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Let the advocates of complementary medicine demonstrate that such treatments work. It is not the responsibility of established medicine to disprove every claimed treatment and therapy; it is up to the proponents of that treatment to make their case.
I often hear the claim that this is intended as a deliberate obstacle to new methods of treatment, but that's simply not the case; it would be grossly irresponsible to endorse a form of treatment without subjecting it to rigorous, peer-reviewed trials. In practice it is a far better system, even allowing your claims of corruption, than the word-of-mouth method of verifying alternative treatments.
Alternative medicine is a multi-billion dollar business. If proponents of that industry had any interest in demonstrating the true efficacy of the treatments, they have plenty of resources with which to mount effective, verifiable trials. Let the proponents make their case, rather than simply complaining that they're being kept down.
Also, "allopath" is a pejorative term of propaganda that suggests an anti-science bias.
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)And it is widely used, and not as a pejorative (except for those opposed to alternative medicine.)
Allopathic medicine.
Allopath.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Why not use the terms "convention" or "actual" medicine? Why pick a term coined by the founder of hoemopathy, an opponent of conventional medicine?
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)"According to MedTerms Dictionary, allopathic medicine is defined as "The system of medical practice which treats disease by the use of remedies which produce effects different from those produced by the disease under treatment. M.D.s practice allopathic medicine. The term "allopathy" was coined in 1842 by C.F.S. Hahnemann to designate the usual practice of medicine (allopathy) as opposed to homeopathy, the system of therapy that he founded based on the concept that disease can be treated with drugs (in minute doses) thought capable of producing the same symptoms in healthy people as the disease itself."
http://web.jhu.edu/prepro/health/allopathic.html
Other definitions don't mention "pejorative" - but we each latch on to what fits our viewpoint.
Don't like it? Don't use it.
Allopathic.
Allopath.
TEHO.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)At the end of the day, there's medicine that works, and then there's alternative or imaginary medicine.
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)Allopathic is apparently a more widely accepted term and not just a "pejorative" but your entitled to your opinion, of course.
Some allopathic works, some doesn't.
It has its place, just as alternative medicine does.
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)Water doesn't cure anything but dehydration.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Ad when there is scientific evidence showing that its not even medicine at all, it's Woo.
Sure, some treatments that are unconventional seem to hold promise, but if they cannot be scientifically proven to work, then it's Woo.
Homeopathy is a prime example of total Woo.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)to treat myself whenever I see fit- with whatever I choose.
No one will ever stop me because I own my body.
People can type whatever they damn well please onto a million internet forums but it won't change the simple fact that I will decide what is right for me. Nothing will change that. Ever.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You can continue to do whatever you want to. No one said you couldn't.
Or was your comment supposed to be some kind of counter-argument to the fact that homeopathy is scientifically proven to not be medicine? If so, your "argument" is lacking any scientific value whatsoever, just like homeopathy.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...your definition of "MEDICINE". Clearly there are many different kinds of "medicine" for many different kinds of disease. There is also a long-standing liberal principle of Personal Choice that is unquestionably relevant in a discussion of personal and public health.
If 'science' was interested in "medicine", cannabis would have been legal 40 years ago.
.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Everything else is not.
Certainly, there are things that have yet to be discovered or scientifically tested that hold promise, but those that have been tested and failed, like homeopathy, are not medicine by any definition.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Is it "medicine"? And if all you're trying to do is make the ' consumer' comfortable, is it really "a medicine"?
.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)This is basic Scientific Method stuff were taling here.
"It works for me" means nothing.
Either it is or it is not scientifically proven. There is no in between.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" - Carl Sagan
You treat "science" like it is some kind of holy truth with its' canons, rituals and divinities and heretics, like me, without realizing it is just another belief system that is keeping you 'satisfied and reassured'.
"It works for me" is YOUR authority as well as mine, so I would say it means a lot. However, in a free-market health industry, the message has to be "It works for everybody!"
Even if it doesn't.
I'm truly amazed that any thinking person can invest so heavily in a belief system that is so detrimental to their own well being.
.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Good luck with that.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)It is far from perfect and it depends on past knowledge. I was educated as a researcher in my very earlier life (MA in research methodology, measurement, and evaluation from NYU), and so I have an inside view of the scientific method.
Anyone that believes the results of a study without checking into the methodology should rethink.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)We are severely limited by our senses and what some seem to think are 'advanced' technological advances. We do have brain power, but I have been wanting to know this for quite some time: How did our own small universe start? How did it happen that there was nothing and then there were planets, etc.? How were the stars formed from nothingness? There are some theories, but nothing measures up as far as I am concerned.
No scientist from here has definitely answered these questions - and this tells me that we are a pretty rudimentary planet with a tremendous amount of info to learn.
So much for the scientific method - it is quite limited and, while it is the best we can do right now, it is far from really being able to provide complete answers to so many of our questions.
We are not as advanced and intelligent as we think we are - at least this is how I think.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Agreed. As long as the same one's with everything to lose by that proof, aren't the ones doing the verifications, I have no problem with it. For example, i'd expect that all testing be done according to scientific protocols like tests for over a two year period at minimum. Testing differences between sexes. Etc.
- You know, all the regular stuff that all the big boys are supposed to follow.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who try to get some facts out, words like 'woo' eg, not just repeated by one person, but by several, I know that the Big Corps have paid for a campaign to silence anyone who questions them.
Have you ever noticed that supporters of Global Corps can be found using repeated 'talking points', phrases, words, eg 'woo' while those with nothing to gain but finding the facts, use their OWN WORDS?
I first noticed this during the Bush years. When arguing with Right Wingers they all sounded the same, using the same 'insults' for 'liberals' to the point where I began to wonder if they were NOT all the same person. Then I learned about 'talking points'.
I had never experienced that before, several people all using the same, mostly very lame btw, 'talking points' and asked to speak in their own words, like WE, liberals, were noticeably doing by contrast.
Dems began to pick this up around 2004 in order to attack the left wing of the party.
When I see this 'language' being used now, I know I cannot trust the source.
'Woo'!
I like your word for the tactic and will follow their example and use it often!
'Poo'! That is all it is. They never, EVER discuss anything. It's almost as if there is a training center somewhere that teaches 'do not dare get into a discussion, just fling as much Poo around as you can in order to derail discussions where facts might be revealed'.
Except it doesn't work. And the older it gets the less it works.
This thread is excellent and I am very glad to have seen it as I believe prescription drugs helped kill my MIL a few years ago. Taken off statins, which she did not need, by a good doctor, unfortunately when she went for a check up to the hospital, they prescribed again.
People become addicted to them, dependent on them, as she did and once a doctor prescribes them, they are afraid not to take them.
I have never been on prescription drugs of any kind and intend to keep it that way after what I've seen among my family and friends.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)materialistic box and attack it.
That's why so many bleat "woo" at anything that doesn't come with a corporate seal of approval.
It's merely conditioning and the inability to abide things that call their world view in question.
Entirely normal response.
Resorting to calling these people and DU'ers as paid for shills is ridiculous and unnecessary.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)way back when studying these tactics, to have everyone on the payroll. When some actual operatives were uncovered on different forums, one I'm thinking of specifically, they were just a few, two or three who attracted a following of those who are naturally attracted to authoritarianism but were not being paid as their goal isn't money, it is as you pointed out to an extent, to feel protected in their small, selfish world.
The words used are not normal words for people to use in the course of conversation making them easily identifiable as coming from some Think Tank (see the exposed emails of HB Gary eg where they discussed how to smear Glenn Greenwald on Internet forums). That was not a surprise by that time as people had already figured it out.
I can't recall ever feeling the need to use other people's words to express an opinion, and I notice neither do most of DU's most respected members.
So, I repeat, whenever I see someone using Think Tank Words and they are easily recognizable, on a forum like this, I know they are followers, insecure people who need to protect their small, selfish corner of the world and the Propagandists who prepare this material, depend on THEM to spread it around and they don't even have to pay most of them.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)So many of these types would also try to say they are against corporations yet deride anyone who seeks information for themselves or alternative therapies. More proof much of the left has been bought and paid for IMO.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...(and no, the term woo is not code word for some vast conspiracy) just underscore the fact that many progressives are just as capable of irrational thought as conservatives, just in a different direction.
And the amount of money wasted on ineffective alternative medicine is crazy. It's a huge business that makes a lot of deceptive people millions every year.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Sheesh.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The Global Warming Hoax Blown Open
Sandy Hook Shooting Continues To Be Exposed
Boston Bombers Tsarnaev brothers: Why Dont The Dots Connect?
Illuminati Insiders Speak Out About The Secret Workings of The Elite Group
and on and on and on....
Sid
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)References
1. Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Archives of Internal Medicine 2012 (Nov 26);172:1680-81.
2. Hilts PJ. Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business and One Hundred Years of Regulation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 2003.
3. Rodwin M. Conflicts of interest, institutional corruption, and Pharma: an agenda for reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2012;40:511-22.
4. Rodwin M. Reforming pharmaceutical industry-physician financial relationships: lessons from the United States, France, and Japan. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2011(Winter):2-10.
5. Sismondo S. Ghost management. PLoS Medicine 2007;4:1429-33.
6. Sismondo S, Doucet M. Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication. Bioethics 2010;24:273-83.
7. Schondelmeyer S, Purvis L. Rx Price Watch Report. Washington DC: American Association of Retired Persons 2012.
8. Kozauer N, Katz R. Regulatory innovation and drug development for early-stage Alzheimer's disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2013 (Mar 13);DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1302513
9. Young JH. The Toadstool Millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1961.
10. Schiff G, Galanter W, Duhig J, et al. Principles of conservative prescribing. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171:1433-30.
- If you're gonna sling shit for a living you should make sure you know WTF you're doing.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Possibly The Most Fascinating UFO Footage Ever Captured On Camera
The Shocking Truth About Alien Abductions (Powerful Video Evidence)
The Biggest Secret: Do Reptilian-Human Hybrids Run Our World?
and my particular favourite:
Wikileaks Cables Confirm Existence of Extraterrestrial Life
Awesome sourcing.
Sid
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)It's the article that the CE piece is based upon. You know, talking about ethics. And how the stuff just seems to be so much in absence these days......
- Have a nice day! Ya hear?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)that pharmaceutical drugs are the 4th leading cause of death? It would be useful to know the source of that claim, as it blatantly contradicts the CDC's list.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...where I said I couldn't give a rat's ass over government stats. Inasmuch as I used to collect, prepare and publish them, I know from whence they cometh and whither they goeth.
But once again I refuse to do other's homework. If you wish to know: SEEK. And ye shall find. Or just believe what you want and find some stats to fit it. That's what most people do anyway.
- Here's the link to the author's essay. His email address is there too. Good luck and let us know how things turned out, okay?
http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)supporting his assertion about the relative deadliness of pharmaceuticals. Or perhaps there's an invisible eleventh reference to "Shit I Made Up Because Government Statistics Don't Support My Worldview". If the author's done a study in this area, he should be citing it to promote his own work. If someone else has done such a study, he should still be citing it, as an academic courtesy and to show why we should take that statement seriously. "No reference" = "no credibility".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Well, according to Sid!
foo_bar
(4,193 posts)http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs
That said,
Ibid.
The author doesn't provide a citation for this claim, and possibly with good reason: 1) it appears to be based on unsourced (ballpark?) estimates, or at least CDC's estimates might indicate otherwise, 2) the claim isn't very well phrased (leading cause of death... where? Presumably the US, since that's where we seem to focus our attention), 3) it isn't clear if this figure includes accidental (or intentional) overdoses, which the CDC might file under "unintentional injuries" or "intentional self-harm" respectively, so 4) it's difficult to extract any specific meaning from this sentence, except that the number of drug-themed fatalities (in the US?) is presumably quite high, although even ranking it is a little misleading, considering #3 through 8 combined add up to about the same number as #2 alone (per CDC..)
With all of that said, I agree with the author's premise that there's a (probably difficult to quantify) cost to society from having a toothless/corrupt FDA, and that "informed consent" is sort of a legal fiction when doctors and patients are bombarded by false and misleading information from pharma's collective marketing efforts unrestrained by oversight.
G_j
(40,367 posts)and say..Harvard
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
G_j
(40,367 posts)of intelligence, I found the original source right away, and found the information quite compelling. Of course we wouldn't want to actually discuss that, would we?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sources matter.
Sid
G_j
(40,367 posts)it's not my post.
I was interested in the subject so I pursued it through the links provided.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)over my years at DU.
JAMA is as mainstream as possible.
So your attempt to discredit a FACT that makes you uncomfortable ends up making you look silly.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I'm displaying why a particular website isn't credible.
The Collective Evolution website linked in the OP is filled with piles upon piles of horseshit, yet the OP chose to send us there.
Sources matter. If the information is credible, it will be reported at a credible site.
Collective Evolution ain't it.
Sid
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Take Back Your Power How to Mitigate the Harmful Effects of Smart Meters
Seriously. If the website you're linking to is anti-vaccine, anti-fluoridation, antibiotics cause autism, chemtrails are real, aliens are among us, 9/11 truther, Boston bombing truther, Sandy Hook truther, global warming denialist, NWO, Illuminati nutbars, it's time to find a new source.
Nice job.
Sid
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I guess I should have just eaten some leaves and applied a poultice - that would have cured my cancer.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)sufficient to get your jollies off.
I sincerely hope you don't manage to disrupt this conversation and people recognize your posts for what they are.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Spamming would be posting the same thing over and over.
I'm providing multiple examples of why the site linked in the OP is batshit crazy.
And I might even provide a few more examples. There's a wealth of woo to choose from at Collective Evolution. I particularly like this one:
Obama Admits Hes A Sociopath: Im Really Good At Killing People
Sid
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. and lose alerting privileges for 24 hours.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Care to post the jury result?
Sid
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)the link in the source article instead? The place you linked to is full of crappy articles that include articles on chemtrails, for pete's sake. It is not a trustworthy source, but is, instead, an advocacy website. Rather than present information in a neutral way, it slants its articles to promote it's advocacy position.
You have a link to a Harvard organization. Why not post an article from that source?
Consider the source, folks. This thread has a bad source that shouldn't be trusted to provide factual information.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I can look at a batshit crazy site and find a few articles that go back to a legitimate source, but I might not find another article making that point and using that source.
Am I then to not post at all?
I think we can all see bullshit and pick out the gems.
I happen to think the main points of the article are correct. I don't care what other articles they might offer about chemtrails or UFOs.
JMHO.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case anymore.
Sid
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)We're all DUers here.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)gulliver
(13,186 posts)...is kind of offensive in my opinion. I don't mind trusting MineralMan on the evaluation of this source. It saves me time. I'm happy to have posts evaluating OP sources, and that doesn't make me stupid.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It's merely stated as an article of faith, which is piss-poor scholarship.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I wrote what I wrote, and you are correct. If you can, please link to a JAMA article saying that Pharmaceuticals are the 4th leading cause of death. I'd be interested in reading that article. I do not believe you can link to any such statement.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I'd like to read such an article. I've no doubt that there are drug-related deaths, but "4th leading cause" seems unlikely.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)US life expectancy for both sexes combined increased from 75.2 years in 1990 to 78.2 years in 2010; during the same period, HALE increased from 65.8 years to 68.1 years. The diseases and injuries with the largest number of YLLs in 2010 were ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and road injury. Age-standardized YLL rates increased for Alzheimer disease, drug use disorders, chronic kidney disease, kidney cancer, and falls. The diseases with the largest number of YLDs in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, and anxiety disorders. As the US population has aged, YLDs have comprised a larger share of DALYs than have YLLs. The leading risk factors related to DALYs were dietary risks, tobacco smoking, high body mass index, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, physical inactivity, and alcohol use.
"Drug use disorders" refers to substance abuse.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The Food and Drug Administration received about 37,000 adverse drug reaction reports in 1985. Seventy-one percent of the reports involved toxic reactions to usual doses of drugs and were sent by medical care professionals directly to the Food and Drug Administration or to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In terms of severity, 2% of reports involved death while 21% involved hospitalization. The highest proportions of hospitalization or death were found for reports describing cardiovascular, hematologic, or respiratory effects. Nearly half of the reported deaths were in patients more than 59 years of age. The majority of reports described an adverse drug reaction occurring within two weeks of initial exposure to the suspected drug. Adverse drug reaction reporting by physicians is crucial to ensuring that pharmaceutical products are used appropriately.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)What is your problem? Is a Harvard journal not a good enough source to you?
http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)of so many posters on this site continues to amaze me.
Yep, drugs kill some people.
They help orders of magnitude more.
And I have suffered some problems from quinolones (torn Achilles Tendons).
Doesn't mean western "standard" medicine is not on the whole greatly beneficial.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)so western allopathic medicine as practiced is much less beneficial than you assert.
Note- I didn't say it isn't at all beneficial.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Western medicine is "only marginally better than placebo?" So polio, small pox and measles vaccines are no better than sugar pills? Those three diseases alone account for millions upon millions of deaths, yet you dismiss these as falling within the margin of error?
Your assertion is preposterous and irresponsible, even if you try to allow yourself some wiggle room with your disclaimer at the end.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Do you also disdain anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs which help many people live resonable lives when they could not also.
I suggest you skip using the internet. There was peer-reviwwed science involved there too.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Faux pas
(14,681 posts)If I could get Armour thyroid here, I wouldn't have to take any medication.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...an emergent health situation is paramount. That is what one must deal with. I'm not familiar with Armour Thyroid, but it makes little point to attempt to achieve good health when you're dying of some disease. That is the priority.
It mostly becomes an issue when you're dying from the medicine designed to keep you alive (as in my case with Prednisone, among others, killing me from the inside). And in point of fact, much of the reason why foods today don't suffice in supporting health and nutritional needs sufficiently, is because the food itself is the problem.
Farming methods have not only added death and misery via the pesticides and GMOs, but we've depleted the soils through constant use, never allowing them time to recover the trace minerals we need as we used to.
- The result is foods that look just beautiful to the eye, tastes mostly bland and unappealing and which are minimally nutritional.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)I live in Podunkia and all the produce here is either imported (why should we eat what we grow here? sarcasm) and never ripens (gmo?)
or if it does ripen, it tastes like whatever color it is. I'd rather eat ice cubes.
Supplements have kept me healthy for the last 15 years or so. I choose them over bad food or any prescription.
Sorry, I haven't read up and down the whole thread. I was responding to you original thread.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)which is an assertion not backed in any mainstream medical journal, it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them.
If you die of a stroke, caused by warfarin, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been prescribed. It very well may have killed you, but delayed you dying of an embolism 5 years earlier.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...if and when the situation is emergent. Saving the life is paramount. But as I've noted earlier, we keep treating symptoms. Why won't anyone agree what the true problem is: The stroke itself. Why not deal with that?
- Because when you boil it down, it all comes down to MONEY. That's, why. They got it and intend to keep it. Even if it kills us.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)Dealing with issues early is the best way to prolong life -- eat right, exercise, get certain preventative care, etc.
That said, if someone comes down with diabetes, they almost always will be on a cholesterol medication and something to control blood sugar. Both of those pills have side effects, including potentially deadly or disfiguring ones.
The problem is that untreated they are more likely to die sooner than if they take the medications. Its not 100%, and its not the case in every individual case (hence we need doctors rather than robots), but in general a diabetic will live longer -- even if they exercise and eat correctly -- if they are on a cholesterol and glucose control medication.
Life carries a 100% mortality rate, and much of medicine in older people is focused on either extending life or quality of life, and occasionally the side effects are lethal, but still better (on average) the the options. For instance, on average an 80 year old woman who is bed ridden (or nearly so) and breaks her hip faces two choices: live longer in excruciating pain, or have surgery to repair the hip (not necessarily to a functional state). The surgery carries a significant risk of death or further disability. Its the patients choice, but either way carries risks and benefits.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)You develop it from a poor diet and eating shit for food. Drinking sodas full of HFCS. Eating fast foods with all kinds of crud in it. And if one does develop diabetes, there are a myriad of other methods of treating it. The worst ones are pharmaceutical.
I'm sorry, but most people have no idea about anything about having to do with living a nutritionally healthy lifestyle, because our food supply has been adulterated for so long that it's impossible to remain healthy eating what's on offer at most grocery stores today.
I've taken diabetes medication (Metformin) when the Prednisone I was also taking induced a diabetic condition in me as negative effect of taking the drug. Which in-turn created even more health problems, the worst of which I'm dealing with now: Peripheral Neuropathy.
- On a side note: you should see all the patents being filed for synthetic forms of CBD, CBN, THC and other cannabinoids they're discovering as we speak -- from cannabis, of course.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Regardless, you're ignoring so much of the picture that you should be embarrassed, and that's being kind.
jsr
(7,712 posts)highplainsdem
(49,004 posts)It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient's death, the numbers come out worse.
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous "To Err Is Human" report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials and quoted ubiquitously in the media.
In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.
Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.
That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.
Direct link to that study:
http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx
FWIW, I prefer to rely on proper diet. nutritional supplements, and exercise as much as possible, rather than depending on doctors and Big Pharma to try to deal with symptoms (often with drugs causing bad side effects).
(Edited to fix the quote above after noticing belatedly that the text for the links in that article hadn't copied properly.)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)An accident, a broken leg, an emergency surgery: that's when the allos can shine. But they know nothing about health. They learned most of what they now know, by stealing the accumulated knowledge going centuries back, and which came from natural and what is now termed ''alternative medicine.'' And then the good 'ol AMA set about destroying it once big money became its principle aim.
- Drug dealers. Drug dealers who work for pharmaceutical companies are primarily what doctors are now. Sad, really. They could have done so much good for the world and they turned their chance into shit. Of course, they've had a lot of help.
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)Here is an excerpt from the discussion of that paper...
Why is the present estimate of the number of lethal PAEs so much higher than the highest estimate (98,000) from the IOM? It is likely that the bar for identification of a PAE in the New York/IOM study was much higher than in the 4 modern studies and that the GTT is better able to identify adverse events than general reviews by physicians, which was the method used in the older studies cited by the IOM.19 It is also possible that the frequency of preventable and lethal patient harms has increased from 1984 to 20022008 because of the increased complexity of medical practice and technology, the increased incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, overuse/misuse of medications, an aging population, and the movement of the medical industry toward higher productivity and expensive technology, which encourages rapid patient flow and overuse of risky, invasive, revenue-generating procedures.3133
As far as I can tell the publication is sound, and I'm not intent on minimizing the very real problems inherent in modern medicine, but the problems being discussed are broader than those being identified by the OP. Infections of antibiotic resistant bacteria acquired in a hospital are most certainly not "pharmaceutical deaths" and neither are deaths during unnecessary surgical procedures, but both of those are being considered in 400,000 number being reported by the scientific study and the NPR article that cites it.
So in summary your source does not support the claim of the OP that pharmaceuticals are the fourth leading cause of death.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)only effects. The companies decide which ones to focus on, and define which to marginalize. Plenty of drugs are now being used for what previously was considered a side effect.
Good science becomes corrupted when money taints the research--drastic reform is needed to restore public trust and safety.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)But as stated before , they are often as splintered as DU on politics,and pharma trolls lurk everywhere , but at least they are enlightened on this subject and it's dangers......
Now as for what can help what was hurt????.....just as much woo vs poo insults as here on many of those sites
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)is well established, and is definitely not a conspiracy theory.
Drugs are recalled very frequently, and sometimes it is due to being connected with human deaths.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Sid
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)professors would laugh at you. It's a woo site.
How am I supposed to take your post seriously when you cite from a website that has these "news" stories:
Chemtrails Are Happening All Over The World According to Former British Columbia Premier
The Recent Increase In Chemtrails
Courts Rule MMR & Thimerosal Containing Vaccines Caused Autism & Brain Damage
Aliens Have Been Working With Governments For Decades
The Shocking Truth About Alien Abductions (Powerful Video Evidence)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)And I don't care if you do.
- I think that solves all the problems as far as I can see.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It's dangerous.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)How does one: ''post as if it's truth?''
I posted an article I find interesting and to which I generally agree. I don't care if you don't like the article. You're free to do so. As am I. If you dislike the article so much might I suggest you let he author know your feelings instead of wasting them on me.
- I'm not here please you. Capice?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Do you not see that doing so is unethical, at best?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The only thing I see is one more CLOSED MIND that believes it knows ALL the RIGHT answers to EVERYTHING.
I hope all that works out for you. Good-bye.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Cut the crap. Grow up.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Look at my posts above. Thanks!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Come on. Cut the crap.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)I asked you to read my posts up above.
Hey, I am just as educated as you are, and probably even more so.
You haven't written anything that would defend anything you have been posting as far as attacking me.
So?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Following that up with a classic logical fallacy doesn't help.
If you have something you want to discuss, then show some humility for once in your life.
Don't ask people to spend their time chasing down all of your posts. That's just not cool.
Goodbye.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Nope you are wrong. But thanks that you can't be bothered to read my posts. Hey, I think you know I am right!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Each of your responses just supports how right I am about the game you're trying to play.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)Please spell it out.
Thanks.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The poster who refuses to offer anything but wild goose chases, then wants the other poster to "explain" the obvious.
You're good at pointlessness. That much is clear. Discussion is clearly not your thing, however.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Do you have an ethical bone in your body? Seriously.
I asked you to explain what you wanted to discuss. You refused, and you've played classic games since then. Is this all you have to offer? Really?
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)I am not playing games - you are playing games.
Excuse me, but you have said some pretty derogatory things to me. How do you explain that?
I will talk to you tomorrow.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Denying it in the face of the evidence is definitely bizarre, and it's certainly unethical. Yes, I am frustrated by the fact that you have chosen to play games rather than discuss anything at all.
Who wouldn't? Seriously, get a clue.
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)it also explains why you think Sid is such a hero
Bye...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Response to HuckleB (Reply #257)
Grateful for Hope This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Grateful for Hope (Reply #256)
Grateful for Hope This message was self-deleted by its author.
indepat
(20,899 posts)America be reason to implement guidelines that could possibly adversely impact industry profitability for: the bidness of America is bidness and biddesses are in bidness to make money.
polichick
(37,152 posts)puts people at risk.
indepat
(20,899 posts)D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)Here is a paper from the CDC showing statistics about death in the US in 2011, by age group, and here is how they break down:
0-24 years
Accidents, 38%; Homicide, 13%; Suicide, 13%; Cancer, 7%; Heart Disease, 3%; All other causes, 26%
25 - 44 years
Accidents, 26%; Cancer, 13%; Heart Disease, 12%; Suicide, 11%; Homicide, 6%; All other causes, 32%
45 - 64 years
Cancer, 32%; Heart Disease, 21%; Accidents, 7%; Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease, 4%; Chronic Liver Disease And Cirrhosis 4%, All others 32%
65+
Heart Disease, 26%; Cancer, 22%; Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease, 7%; Stroke, 6%; Alzheimer's, 5%; All Others, 34%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db115.htm
Here is the top 10 causes of death world wide from WHO : http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/
Curiously "death by pharmaceuticals being used as directed" is not on that list either.
You also don't find that entry in any of the COD stats that are broken down by income:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index1.html
And finally the article you linked doesn't source any research to support that claim, the author merely asserts it without any backup. If you have a source for that claim or some actual statistics feel free to share.
Big Blue Marble
(5,093 posts)it is so easy for your critics to attack links. So much easier than facing the truth that modern
medicine has a dark side. I used this link in a thread on Monday. It reporting the same results.
http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100%2C000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs%2C_while_pharma_companies_get_rich
It is from Alternet; a side that is often cited on DU for presenting alternative perspectives from
corporate media. It will not satisfy the critics because nothing will. They just want to shout you
down and demean you. If they are anything, they are predictable.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's what this OP does. It's ugly. It's dangerous. It's wrong.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Because that's what they are... and the website in the OP is a woo site.
Just clarifying...
polichick
(37,152 posts)have been used successfully for hundreds of years.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The fallacy of the ancients and the naturalistic fallacy are both bogus and the use of them amounts to nothing more than bad propaganda, which is unethical, at best.
polichick
(37,152 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Well, that's your choice, but don't be offended when people who give a crap about others call you out on your BS.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Do a little homework and you'll find that the active ingredients in big pharma's products are derived from natural substances - and changed just enough to get a patent, which allows the companies to make tons of cash from brainwashed fools.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)But, what you choose to ignore is that researchers have selected specific parts of those natural substances, etc... Clearly, you have a very minimal understanding of this. Thus, I would recommend that you spend a few thousand hours researching this, and challenging yourself every step of the way. That's what I've done.
polichick
(37,152 posts)in other cultures for hundreds of years - and save yourself a buttload of money.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your repeated choice to engage in discussion is not unexpected, but it is bizarre. You clearly don't understand science in any way, shape or form. You have bought into a philosophy. You stick to the logical fallacies no matter what.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Seriously, if you have an actual curious bone in your body, start to question your beliefs. You will be surprised if you do.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Best of luck - thanks again for the laughs.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your laughter is rather bizarre, since it's based in logical fallacies and misinformation.
It's also based in a lack of basic ethics.
Do you have any shame?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The side effects mentioned in the commercial for this completely legal sleep aid blow me away. There's this happy little magic butterfly fluttering around, and then this soothing female voice quietly mentions users will want to keep an eye out for homicidal or suicidal thoughts, as well as "eating, driving or gambling while asleep ..." And there's more, including hallucinations, apparently.
No big. Just might find yourself on the road to Vegas, eating a burger, not awake in any way.
Then there's some mention about how no one really knows how it works, but it's "thought to affect ..." or some such.
For a sleeping pill. It sounds like the Happy Fun Ball sketch from SNL. Do not TAUNT Lunesta, which is filled with a glowing substance that fell to Earth, presumably from space ..."
Many pharmaceuticals clearly are life-saving and worthy. I just had occasion to take quite a few, had no severe side-effects, and I'm very glad they exist. I heard on NPR today that there may be a new drug that can cure Hep-C with few side effects -- basically a pill -- which will be an incredible thing if it bears out.
But these prescription drugs -- just how many bizarre side effects, for what purported cure should be okay?
There's another ad on TV for something to help with a skin rash that promises something like a 20% improvement, but comes with a chance of lethality. Heart attack or brain cancer or something. Again delivered in the most soothing tones of course. "Your legs will probably clear up somewhat. Also, you may die. Call your doctor today!"
Something's out of whack.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The likelihood of those events occurring is mind boggling low, but "Big Pharma" is focused on protecting its arse. Thus, a medicine that is usually quite helpful, though it should be used far more conservatively than it is, gets a reputation that doesn't match reality.
Bottom line: "Big Pharma" is a BIG PROBLEM, but it's not because of the medicines themselves, most of the time.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)severe or really bizarre side effects in a drug actually brought to market give me pause. How does a Lunesta patient guard against the low probability they will become suicidal or homicidal, or "drive, eat or gamble while asleep?" I mean, I expect lots of drugs to warn you might get a headache, or an upset stomach. That's the "ass covering" I think of, anyway.
But murderous thoughts, halluncination and sleep gambling just seem like maybe they should be in a category we call, "You can't sell that to people." I don't know.
And given we know there's been no shortage of truly dangerous drugs getting to market, I'm becoming convinced our system for bringing them there is broken.
I agree it's big profits driving this. And the FDA seems co-opted.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If we waited for the perfect treatment, we'd have a much shorter life expectancy. One has to weigh the risks of any treatment, and treatments that can actually help, can sometimes have side effects for some individuals. It's not something anyone wants. But failing to use treatments that help a majority of people because of side effects in a few seems wrong to me.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)and Sleep Gambling strikes me as a whole lot to throw on the table for a sleep disorder. How many sleeping, gambling murders would it take to make it just not worth the risk? Would one in 10,000 be acceptable?
Moreover (and I wish I a transcript of the ad in front of me) the part about "We don't really know how it works" suggests an awful lot of rolling the dice with people's brains to induce a condition a lot of drugs can help with. Doctors are supposed to be scientists. But this suggests to me a lot of guesswork for a drug that's altering brain chemistry.
I do admit when I mentioned this before, a couple of people piped up and said it helped them (and presumably no sleep driving gamble murders occurred).
How about a Benedryl? Or the right strain of marijuana?
I agree you don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I question whether a non-profit-driven drug industry would be encouraging these risk / reward ratios.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Insomnia tends to feed things like depression, anxiety, alcoholism etc... all of which are precursors to suicide, etc... Thus, it's not an easy balance, but there is far more check and balance with "Big Pharma" than with other "options." I'm not saying that science doesn't get it wrong sometimes. It certainly does, but it is science that corrects the wrong science. And that is something that is lost on many among us.
Cheers!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)And I'm already in the hospital recovering from major surgery at the time.
These people who make this shit and dispense it and know what it does, are sick.
- Really sick.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)More quality "science" from Collective Evolution.
Sid
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)More greatness from Collective Evolution.
Kicking for exposure, in light of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024149395