Are you better informed than your doctor is?

[grasswire]

And if so, how do you handle this situation?

It seems as if many Americans are more up to date on the latest research and trends than their physicians are, because of the rise in preventive medicine and alternative medicines, and the wonders of the Internet.

And it seems that some physicians are resistant to having the patient advocate for himself/herself and participate in decision making. Many docs want to fit the patient into the template and prescribe drug after drug after drug or whatever the computer recommends.

The fact that some treatments lose favor and some treatments actually turn out to be dangerous means that it may be folly to blindly accept whatever path is prescribed.

So do you have this kind of situation? And have you overcome it?

[1monster]

1. I'm fortunate in having doctors that listen to me and address my concerns. However, if they did not

they wouldn't be my doctors for long. I'd go looking for a practice that would listen and learn.

My neighbor pretty much interviews her doctors on the first visit and, because she is very knowledgeable has rejected a few doctors and been rejected by a few doctors who didn't take her concerns favorably.

[godai]

2. In some areas, probably yes.

I'd say, don't hesitate to ask questions and provide information about which you are aware. Drugs can be very useful but there are options for treating a lot of conditions. For example, cholesterol can be controlled by many people by diet and exercise. Nothing extreme, just regular activity and cutting out a lot of high calorie desserts, smaller portions, diet sodas etc.

Sometimes, it's better to find another doctor, if your doctor won't listen to what you're trying to say. Ask questions and ask for further explanation if you don't understand some aspect of the treatment.

I once had a doctor basically threaten me that, if I didn't start taking a statin drug for somewhat higher than normal cholesterol, that it was not his responsibility for any health issues which might arise. I never went back to that doctor and my next cholesterol test was normal. If I had gone on the statin, I may have been taken it the rest of my life.

[grasswire]

3. that's precisely what has triggered my post

The introduction of a statin. I don't want it. I also don't want another drug called Coreg that's being pushed on me. Lord almighty, the experiences of people taking Coreg are horrible. (Actually, I should qualify that. For people with CHF, the drug is apparently a miracle. For people with better heart function than that, the side effects seem too much to bear, according to their own words)

My physician today is allowing me another month to make up my mind about the meds and then she will really try to put on the pressure.

I feel great -- even terrific! And my labs are borderline. I don't want to switch to a new med that will make me cough or gain weight or be exhausted or yadda yadda.

So I guess I'll be doctor shopping. And my young cardiologist is supposed to be a hotshot but he's the one pushing the statin.

[Celebration]

4. Have you tried a more wholistic type doctor?

I have been known to doctor shop, by necessity. If you want a doctor that is slower to give meds, you might try a wholistic doctor, who would be more likely to suggest diet and lifestyle revisions. If you ask around, you can probably find one in your community.

[varkam]

6. Do you mean 'holistic'? eom

[Celebration]

8. either

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/Wholistic+Medicine.asp?q=Wholistic+Medicine

Wholistic Medicine
Health as viewed from the perspective that humans and other organisms function as complete, integrated units rather than as aggregates of separate parts.


From the online medical dictionary

[varkam]

9. I've just never heard it referred to as 'wholistic'. eom

[chicagomd]

13. Medicine is medicine.

It either works or it doesn't work.

If a therapy works, it must work towards the good of the entire body. What you put into your stomach goes to you blood, liver, colon, kidneys, brain, and just about every other organ system. If a medication helps one area but hurts another to a degree that it is not benefitical to the whole it should not be used, or should be reserved for extreme cases.

If a therapy is going to save your life but might destroy your liver then by definition it is effective at the level of the organism, but it might not be acceptable to some patients.

And all physicians are trained to view the human body as a whole and to understand how each system interacts with each other. Just because you study the brain separate from the renal system does not mean you don't have to understand how the two work together. By the above definition all physicians are "wholistic".

[Celebration]

15. Are you saying that all doctors

Treat the very same conditions the exact same way? Because..........they don't. There is a rather large subset of doctors that don't reach for the prescription pad as soon as the others, and would prefer to work with interventions that are not based on drugs, unless absolutely necessary. I know this because I have been to them. Doctors are not cookie cutters any more than patients are.

[Book Lover]

16. If you read his post, you can easily tell

he is saying nothing of the kind. He is explaining to you that doctors are trained to mentally integrate their understanding of the functionality of the body's various systems. As someone involved with creating premed textbooks, I can tell you that he is 100% accurate - that is how doctors are trained. It is somewhat disingenuous for practitioners of {w}holistic medicine to say that only they treat "the whole body" because medical doctors do, too.

[Celebration]

17. Maybe it is the nomenclature that is bothersome?

There are some doctors who are not as quick to prescribe medicine as others--they call themselves various things--complementary, integrative, wholistic, holistic, or whatever they prefer to call themselves. They do make distinctions between themselves and other doctors, and thus label themselves however they desire.

For the sake of the unity of the group, I will amend my post, and I would recommend that this person try to see someone in that subset of doctors, who, rightly or wrongly, label themselves as either wholistic, holistic, complementary, or integrative, and who, in practice, try to use as few pharmaceuticals as possible. There are such doctors, and some may not even use a label. I was suggesting this because the OP said he doesn't want to take a Statin drug if he can avoid it.

This doesn't seem all that controversial to me, but, oh, well.

[godai]

5. Try to start with lower dose

A lower dose is less likely to cause side effects and may work for you. This could be a point of discussion with your doctor. Actually, before statins are started, diet and exercise is supposed to be the first step tried.

Got to keep blood pressure under control, since constant high blood pressure is not healthy. Again, a lower doese may work and have less side effects. I use a home blood pressure monitor to check my blood pressure every day.

[1monster]

19. Try taking a therapeutic does of Niacin every night. You might want to start out with

500mg to 1000mg per night (I take 1500mg every night and have for the last four or so years).

You may want to take Vitamin D, too.

Niacin dilates and helps keep blood vessels flexible. It helps raise good cholesterol level and lower the bad cholesterol levels. Both Niacin and Vitamin D have a wide range of beneficial effects including warding off diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis.

[varkam]

7. I would say no on most things.

As Dickens wrote in A Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of times and it was the worst of times. The internet has made relatively specialized information widely available - information that, only a couple of decades ago, one had to be "in the know" in order to access it.

This, at least in my view, is a double-edged sword. On the whole, it has minimized the gap between professional and consumer in terms of information (which I think is generally a good thing). It allows for consumers to be more aware and more involved in the choices that they make. That is always a good thing.

However, there's what I refer to as the "CNN Effect". The CNN Effect is when you hear a blurb about an issue and then think that you have an understanding of that issue, when you really do not. In our age of 24/7 news cycles, Frappucinos, and Blackberries, issues are often much more complex than they are made out to be in a sound-bite or a press release. So, often, I think people's concerns may be unfounded just on the basis that they don't have all the information (after all, there's still no way to get an MD through Google U).

I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't be their own advocates in the health care system, they should - and the boon of the internet has been that it is now much easier for people to be able to do this. The only problem, though, is when you know just enough to be dangerous but not nearly enough to be effective...so to speak. That's not to say that your doc shouldn't listen to you or try to address your concerns. If you don't like your doc, then get a new one. There are also probably some bad docs out there that haven't touched a medical journal since they graduate from med school, and you should shy away from those as well. The half-life of a first rate medical school education isn't more than a few months these days.

I am saying, though, that one should exercise caution in exactly how much independence that they choose to assert over their own health-care. There is a reason, after all, that one needs an education before they can practice medicine.

[Celebration]

10. It worked way better trusting the doctor

When the doctor had time to diagnose, and actually talk to the patient. Also, clinical skills have declined as the uses of various tests have increased. Lots of people don't fit in nice, neat little boxes.

Even for things that shouldn't be that hard to diagnose, they slip by. As an example, I have a friend that had lost fifteen pounds for no particular reason, and he had cholesterol issues and eye issues. Even with blood tests (but probably not the correct ones) it took THREE DOCTORS before they diagnosed him as being hyperthyroid. I didn't know about this until after the fact.

It isn't that doctors aren't educated, but they are often too rushed. As it turned out I think it was some off brand doctor that was giving our friend vaccinations for a trip to India that diagnosed him. It wasn't even somebody that was supposed to be looking for anything. So weird!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to diagnose hyperthyroidism, either clinically or from blood tests.

I think it pays big time to try to figure out the problem *before* you go to the doctor. Sometimes that is not possible. But most of the time if you request a reasonable blood test, like TSH, they will accommodate you.

[grasswire]

12. point taken

However, the recent backtracking on low fat v. low carb recommendations is a case in point. Doctors in cooperation with the government and the pharma industry have convinced Americans that fat is evil and the cause of the obesity epidemic. Now we know that was based on a leap of faith at the NIH in the 1970s, and wrong. Any doc who perpetuates the old, damaging myths won't be my doctor, because it's his/her business to stay up to date.

[Avalon Sparks]

48. Absolutely right, Grasswire

I'm amazed that more people do not realize this. I think it's the sugar (high carb) that's causing so many health issues - Heart Disease, high cholesterol, cancer and obviously diabetes. People are absolutely brainwashed that low fat is good. It's definitely not good at all for many people....

With the state of health care and health advise (low fat diet and 'a pill for every ailment' mentality) in this country, I am so thankful for the internet in that I can read actual medical studies to expand my knowledge base. I really feel I have to take my healthcare into my own hands and based on research on the internet, form my own conclusions about medical treatment. Doctors just don't have the time to support and really help people - what's good for one is good for all - it seems many times.

Got a new PCP a year ago and although he kinda follows the herd thinking, he still listens to me and we always discuss treatment. He seems to genuinely respect my input about research I have done.

I'm amazed at how many people just blindly follow Doctor's advice without attempting to explore all available research out there. If I'm diagnosised with something serious, I want to know about all treatment options out there.

[Book Lover]

11. Seeing as how I didn't go through a decade of training before

being granted a license to help people, no.

[xchrom]

14. i stay well informed -- but no -- i do not want to be in the doctors seat.

i can never know enough for that.

[supernova]

18. Depends on which type of doc

For most things, a GP is probably better informed than me. Ditto a OB/GYN.

However, they don't know a lot about nutrition. You usually have to see a nurse or dietician on their staff for that.

However, I have congenital heart disease, and it is a topic about which I am better informed than your garden-variety cardiologist. I am of necessity simply because there aren't that many cardiologists that specialize in it. Most cardiologists are focused on the onset of heart disease brought on by atherosclerosis in adults.

CHD is a peculiar subspecialty in cardiology and is different from regular cardiology when you talk about heart structure, kinds of defects, treatments/surgeries, outcomes, and quality of life. And this is across the lifespan, from newborns to adults.

edit: I echo others here. If the doc doesn't respect you or believe what you tell him/her, it's time to find a different doc.

edit2: I need to add that I use my knowledge to find docs that I think are sufficiently well-informed to deal with a case like mine. I don't really want to be better informed (it is rather tiring) but my good health demands that I do so.

[SidDithers]

20. Yes, 'cause i can read stuff on the tubes....

whereas my doc only went to school for more than half her life.

Sid

[TZ]

26. Yeah, I love the Dr. Google syndrome

Of course Doctor's know nothing from all their schooling. And we all know that NO DOCTOR ever goes to seminars or reads scientific journals to find out the latest in their field.:sarcasm:

And people think DOCTORS are arrogant? I submit that most of the people in this thread are far more arrogant than any doctor I have met! Wikipedia does not equal A DEGREE IN SCIENCE!!
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[trotsky]

21. Are you better informed about cars than your mechanic?

Are you better informed about your leaky pipes than a plumber?

Are you better informed about nuclear physics than a nuclear physicist?

Honestly, it's alarming how anti-intellectuals have latched on to the field of medicine in particular, to hold people who studied very hard for 10 years in such contempt that they think a few Google searches and throwing a "w" in front of a word makes you just as qualified, or even more so.

[Warpy]

23. Actually, I always tell my mechanic what has died

The guy tells me it could be a lot of things but I always tell him yeah, it could be, but it's what I said it was.

I've always been right.

[trotsky]

24. You, my dear Warpy, are the exception to most rules. ;-)

With your health professional experience, even I'd trust you over more than a few doctors.

So I guess it doesn't really surprise me to learn you know your car better than your mechanic.

[Warpy]

22. I have fibro

and find I'm a lot more informed about the latest research and treatment trends than my doc is. He's a hard sell, but I've managed to figure out what best appeals to him.

I've also had to educate dentists about Sjogren's syndrome. I'm pleased to say that dentists I've educated have been picking up early cases and getting them appropriate treatment with a rheumatologist.

I have the leisure to sit and read studies. My doc often doesn't, and can barely find the time to skim articles in some of the journals. I find myself filling in the gaps a lot.

[OnionPatch]

25. Sometimes it seems that way.

My latest example: I wanted to try bio-identical hormone replacement therapy. (I was having hot flashes three times a night. The loss of sleep was turning me into a monster.) So I researched and found out that bio-identical hormones are molecularly the same as the actual hormones in a woman's body. Prempro, Premarin and the other "conventional" HRT hormones are not. In fact, they could not be patented if they were because natural substances can't be patented. There are a lot of doctors out there who believe this could very well be part of the reason why Prempro/Premarin causes cancer. And this makes sense to me. I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to take hormones, I want them to be the exact hormones my body makes.

My doctor had seemed uninformed before, but when I asked her if I could try the bio-identicals, I was blown away by her answer. She said she would not prescribe them because, "We don't really know enough about them. They might not be real hormones." :wow:

Real??!! They are more "real" than the horse-derived hormones on the market! What I did was drop her like a hot potato, do some research and found a doctor who prescribes them. This new doctor seems very informed and up on all the latest medical findings and news and is very open to alternative medicine, too. I've been really happy with her.

When this type of thing happens, it's time to find another doctor. The faster, the better.

[trotsky]

27. "bio-identical"

The bioidentical folks tell us that Premarin and Provera are unnatural and harmful substances cynically foisted on us by Big
Pharma to make profits. They don't seem to realize that all doctors are either women, married to women, or sons of women, who presumably
are more concerned about women's health than about Big Pharma profits, and that doctors have read all the same information they
have. They recommend estrogens and progesterone from natural plant sources. Premarin comes from pregnant mare's urine: that seems more
natural to me, since we're much more closely related to a horse, another mammal, than we are to a plant. And the plant isn't used in
a natural form; it's used as the basis of laboratory synthesis. And there is a reason that we started giving women progestins like
Provera instead of natural progesterone: natural progesterone is not absorbed well. Progestins were reliably absorbed and dosage easily controlled.

"Bioidentical" is not standard medical terminology. It's their way of saying it is the same exact chemical compound found in the human
body. But there are lots of different estrogenic compounds found in the body, including estriol, estradiol and estrone. Nothing we do is
likely to replace all the estrogenic compounds in exactly the way they occur in the body. There are around 30 different estrogens in
Premarin. One, equilin, is present in horses but not in women. Curiously, that "unnatural" element appears to be neuroprotective
and is being studied as a possible treatment for Alzheimer's disease. There's no solid evidence that any supplemental mixture of
hormones is ideal. Anything that has hormonal effects may have hormonal side effects, and for all we know good old Premarin and
Provera may be less harmful than some other mixtures.

Compounding pharmacists make up the bioidentical remedies, often in the form of a cream. Advocates themselves recognize that there is
inconsistency between pharmacies, and they may have tried two or three different compounders before they hit on one that seems to
work consistently for them. In one survey, about a third of the compounded samples tested had substandard amounts of drugs. The FDA
is concerned about the growing popularity of compounding and the need for better regulation.

There are hypothetical reasons to think "bioidentical" hormones should be superior to Premarin and Provera. But there are also
hypothetical reasons to think that they may be no more effective and no safer. The only way to know for sure is to test them in a
properly designed placebo-controlled trial. Until this is done, most of us feel more comfortable with the devil we know than the devil we
don't know.

More...

[OnionPatch]

28. Too bad no one will test them.

At least not a large test. I have heard there have been smaller tests.

I'll admit that I am no expert here. All I know is what I've read, and I did read the piece you posted above or a very similar one. It says we'd rather stay with "the devil we know". We know that estriol and progesterone (what I take) are two of the basic, natural hormones in a woman's body and Provera and Premarin are not. For that reason, I feel that the devil my body knows are estriol and progesterone, not Provera and Premarin. I'd rather take my chances with them.

But regardless of all that, the thing I was amazed about with my old doctor is that she said they didn't know if bio-identical hormones were "real". If she had come back at me with the stuff in the paragraph you posted above, I wouldn't have been appalled.

[trotsky]

29. You didn't really read that excerpt, did you?

We know that estriol and progesterone (what I take) are two of the basic, natural hormones in a woman's body and Provera and Premarin are not.

But we also know that naturally in the body there is a wide variety of estrogenic compounds. Taking just one or two, is not going to be "natural" in any sense. In a way, we DON'T know if these "bio-identicals" are real. We don't know how the body will react to having just a small sampling of the range of estrogenic compounds normally found.

We also know that:

natural progesterone is not absorbed well. Progestins were reliably absorbed and dosage easily controlled.

Taking pure progesterone, you might just be literally pissing your money away.

[OnionPatch]

30. But I've been taking hormone tests.

This has been monitored with saliva tests. It took some adjustments to get it just right. When I took Premarin, I was given a standard dosage, no tests at all. How do we know that was right? I was getting migraines regularly when I took them.

From what I've read, estriol is converted in the body to all sorts of other estrogenic compounds, including estrone and estradiol, the two other major estrogens. Do we know that Premarin does that?

If we don't know that bio-identicals are "real" then I don't see how we know that premarin is "real" either. :shrug:

It wasn't my intention to get into an argument about which is better. My main point was that the doctor didn't seem to know at all what she was talking about. I felt she was talking down to me by giving me such an incomplete and non-sensible answer. Now if you were my doctor I would applaud the conversation. But too bad I had to have this conversation on a board with someone I don't know instead of with my own doctor.

[Celebration]

32. most of them don't have the time

Some doctors are more skilled at having conversations than others, particularly in the time allowed. Some also seem fundamentally frustrated with their jobs, probably because they are rushed and stressed out. That may lead them to be a little bit snippy when they are questioned about something. You need to be applauded for finding a doctor that suits your needs.

[trotsky]

33. The point is, "natural" is poorly defined, and not always safe.

Arsenic, for example, is completely natural. So is cyanide.

As far as taking estriol, there are some concerns there too.

http://www.yourmenopausetype.com/menopausequestionsandanswers/04232000.html

Question: I have been told that estriol is a better choice than estradiol because it does not stimulate cells the same way that estradiol does. Is estriol really safer, or does it have the same risks as other estrogens.

Short Answer:

“Estriol therapy may have some of the same risks of other estrogen therapies, specifically if taken in excessive dosages. Like any estrogen therapy, it should not be used without the guidance of an experienced healthcare professional.”

Long Answer:

To fully understand this we have to first review estrogens, then review estriol and its metabolite 16-hydroxyestrone. We do know that estriol has “estrogenic” properties – though considered to be weaker than estradiol. However the “weakness” is overcome by using higher dosages. The fact that estriol is metabolized into 16-hydroxyestrone also causes concern.

Lots more at that link, including studies that suggest estriol could encourage breast cancer.

The bottom line is, A) it's difficult to say what is more "natural", and B) that the more "natural" product may be just as harmful. After all, the real "natural" solution is to allow your body to sign off estrogenic compounds as it sees fit. Putting ANYTHING into your system would technically be termed "unnatural."

[OnionPatch]

45. Thanks for the interesting information.

I know that "natural" does not = safe. That's always been pretty obvious to me. If you were trying to convince me that it's not safe to take any hormones, then you've succeeded in reinforcing that since I have always known that taking hormone supplements is risky business. But I'm no biologist, so I am definitely not knowlegable enough to make a thorough evaluation of all the data and come to any reliable, scientific conclusion. All I can do is read as much as I can and listen to the advice of professionals whom I trust and so far, the ones I trust seem to believe bio-identical hormones may be safer than the others.

That aside, the fact that my doctor is testing my hormone levels regularly, answering all of my questions and monitoring my health is enough to make me want to stick with the bio-identicals instead of Premarin. The doctor who prescribed Premarin could not even recognize me from one visit to the next and poo-pooed any of my complaints about side-effects. My questions were not answered or were answered with BS. The general impression I got was that she didn't really care all that much and couldn't be bothered to look into it. Can you really blame me for wanting to stick with the bio-identicals?

[Celebration]

31. the research on this stuff is so confusing

First they conclude one thing, then another re: heart disease, the aging brain, etc. That will probably keep going on for years. The best thing to do is have as many options available for people as possible, and let the doctor and patient choose what works best.

[trotsky]

34. No, that isn't always the "best thing to do."

Known and tested options should always have preference over unknown and untested. I know you disagree with this approach, and I know you distrust/fear doctors and the medical establishment. But do keep in mind that there are PLENTY of professionals in the field who don't value big pharma kickbacks over the health of their patients.

[Celebration]

35. look at the history of the research on this stuff

It is just ridiculous. Yes, it is great for women and heart disease. No it is bad for women and heart disease. Yes it is good for preventing Alzheimer's. No it is bad for preventing Alzheimer's. This thread is all about whether doctors know best, right? What is "best" according to research in one time frame is "worst" in another? And who is best at framing the research? Why, the ones who pay for it of course.

I don't have all the answers but gee, I wonder why I don't trust our system.

:sarcasm:

Honestly, people are better off left to their own devices than putting up with this crap--from Vioxx to Avandia, to Vytorin and Zetia, and who knows what will be next?

[trotsky]

36. You base all your decisions on less than half the data.

This has been pointed out to you time and again, but you don't care. "Natural" = good, everyone is perfectly qualified to judge the truthiness of health claims, yada yada.

[Celebration]

38. never said that

But who *is* qualified to judge the truthiness of health claims? If we had done such a great job, then the conclusions reached wouldn't be subject to such drastic revision.

[TZ]

41. Once again you miss the point

Contradictory studies are OFTEN the case in science, not just the medical fields. What people here fail to see is that there are WAYS to judge which study is more accurate. Things like sample size, types of assays used, statistical analysis and even conclusions drawn by each study influence it.
I am quite experienced now at looking at studies and evaluting how accurate they are.
Sometimes I can even tell by what type of animal they are using as a research animal what they are trying to do (ie rats are tumor prone because of various rodent viri they can easy pick up in the lab so anyone who does a study and says substance A causes tumors in rats makes me suspicious in that they WANTED to get that conclusion, ie, its NOT a objective study).

[TZ]

37. Once again you show your NARROW scope of view

You have an INCREDIBLY warped view of the medical establishment. Do you NOT realize for every Vioxx there are about 50-100 drugs that are incrediblly safe and effective. But NOOOO that would contradict your prejudice wouldn't it.
As for people being left to their own devices..I would probably have had a stoke by now, my Dad would be dead from a heart attack and my sister totally unable to function due to her Lupus without medical intervention.
Get this through your thick skull: WIKIPEDIA, GOOGLE, AND THE MSM ARE NOT ACCURATE OR GOOD SOURCES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE!!!:banghead:

Did you even READ this? Actually MEDICAL RESEARCH!!:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x31978

[Celebration]

39. first of all

Vioxx wasn't just one drug-- it was a BLOCKBUSTER DRUG. And it killed a whole lot of people who had no history of heart problems. Plus it is a lot more than just Vioxx!

People being left to their own devices DOES NOT MEAN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT TAKE PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS. You are completely missing the message. People and their doctors should be able to choose from a wide variety of options. You know, I wouldn't have taken Vioxx, probably. And I would have been right. It is possible that there were people that declined Vioxx when their doctors wanted them to take it. In that case, were they correct not to have trusted the doctor? You betcha. Does that hurt? You betcha. Why? Because, what lurks around the corner, after Avandia, after Vioxx, after Rezulin.........

Buyer beware. Obviously that applies to ALL substances, all herbs, all "natural" items, all pharmaceuticals whether or not they are FDA approved, all food from China. Buyer beware is the watchword. If people have a lot of options available, many choices, including compounded drugs, well, at least they will be making their own mistakes, rather than their mistakes being state (FDA) sponsored.

[TZ]

42. Missing the point again

As many people that had Vioxx issues, many more were actually helped by Vioxx. If you listen to what most MD's say now, you will hear that they feel the dangers of COX2 inhibitors have been WAY overstated. That they are safe for many although unsafe for a few.
As for the settlements, goodness we know that all lawyers work for free and would NEVER blow anything out of proportion in order to win a big settlement.:sarcasm:
I've worked with Merck people on projects before and they have been some of the smartest sharpest and highly honest people I've worked with. Yet, from what you and others post you would think they are out to kill everyone.
As for the FDA, its more benign neglect than anything else. They need more staffing and funding.
As someone who keeps meticulous records everyday under the threat of surprise inspections (which I have been through elsewhere and is no walk in the park, let me assure you!) I can tell you that sometimes HONEST mistakes happen in research because clinical trials often do not give enough DATA to learn everything.

[Celebration]

43. And over and over again

I have stated that Vioxx should not have been taken off the market. The whole problem was the hiding of the complications in certain people. It certainly should be available as a last resort. Many people were doing fine on the drug and now they don't have it available. Taking it off the market probably killed my father in law because he had to go to morphine for pain relief.

It should have been black boxed to begin with. The heart complications should have been known on the front end. This certainly appears not to have been an honest mistake, at least after a certain point. However I agree that all employees were not involved. The risk, however, is significant.

The point is that when a person ingests anything they need to have all available information on the benefits and risks. They did not have all available information on the risks. If the risks had been fully explained on the front end, Merck would not be facing all these lawsuits. You know the answer is really just very simple--tell the truth, don't hide anything.

Again, it is up to the patients and doctors to scrutinize the benefits and risks, but, ultimately, it is the patient's health we are talking about, and the bulk of the responsibility is there. So, whether or not the doctor has a higher IQ or more education or knowledge than the patient is beside the point when it comes to a decision on what to ingest. It is the patient that lives or dies with the decision.

[cosmik debris]

40. Let's re-invent the wheel

When a tire blows out on my car I don't go shopping for a new tire, I go to google to find different ways to slide my car down the road.

I blame the tire industry and look to the past to see how vehicles got by in the past.

I never admit that I bought cheap retreads or that I haven't checked the inflation pressure in 2 years.

And when someone comes along selling car skis I jump on that idea so fast it spins your head.

And, of course, I never give up the three good tires that I have left.

This pattern is repeated daily in this forum. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[OnionPatch]

44. Yes, I read it.

I was trying to get ready for work while I replied to these, so sorry if my answers were not well-organized.

[Celebration]

46. Check this out

Post #2 in this thread--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3183269

[cosmik debris]

47. That whole thread is a Hoot!

All those people who don't trust doctors will automatically believe ONE DOCTOR who says something scary.

Sometimes I mourn the death of critical thinking here.

Sometimes I just laugh.