A Chicken In Every Pot is Now A Prescription Drug In Every Cabinet

[Guest guest]

First, I want to preface this post by saying - folks .. I am NOT A

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ... I know several of them .. and they really tick

me off *lol*

 

That being said .. doesn't crap like this really make folks raise an

eyebrow????

 

Almost Half of Americans Use at Least One Prescription Drug Annual

Report on Nation's Health Shows

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm

(This report is published in 12/04 .. does anyone here think the numbers

have significantly decreased?)

 

I am one of the ONLY people I know personally who is not on, nor has an

immediate family member on, prescription drugs of one type or another -

and with everyone on these meds, I honestly don't see folks getting any

healthier! Quite the contrary in fact

 

My kids are 7 and 3 and neither has ever had an allopathic prescription!

Are we the ultimate beings in the gene pool .. I very highly doubt it!

 

What is actually going on? I don't know ... I'm just some dumb young

Yankee living in the SE tip of the Southwest ...

 

Now, off my soap box and on to making - well - soap! {grinz}

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

http://www.alittleolfactory.com <http://www.alittleolfactory.com/>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am one of the ONLY people I know personally who is not on, nor has an

immediate family member on, prescription drugs of one type or another -

and with everyone on these meds, I honestly don't see folks getting any

healthier! Quite the contrary in fact

 

[Dave:] You are so right. One of the most alarming things I’ve witnessed

over the last few years is the direct marketing of new drugs to consumers.

As far as I can see, just about 100% of these commercials spend up to a

third of their air time in disclaimers: don’t take this if you have liver

problems, if you are nursing, if you are pregnant or may become pregnant,

etc. What’s this telling us? That these drugs are dangerous, is what.

There very least we can conclude is that if these drugs can damage the liver

in order to relieve symptoms, they are NOT addressing the cause of the

disease (if there really is any disease in the first place).

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am not much of a poster but I do need to make some response to this. It

is easy not to be on prescription drugs when you do not have a chronic and

yet treatable condition.

 

And I wholly agree that there is too much hammering on the public and on

doctors by the pharmaceutical companies.

 

But when you say, " I honestly don't see folks getting any healthier! Quite

the contrary in fact, " I have to disagree. Among my family and friends and

myself are people with glaucoma--prescription drops have brought down the

eye pressure and basically saved the person's sight, high blood

pressure--one pill a day has brought the numbers down from a dangerously

high 140's over 90's to a safe mid 100 and teens over low 70's and, to speak

of myself, an unexplained exhaustion was diagnosed as low thyroid output and

one prescription pill a day has brought my levels up to normal and myself

back to feeling energy again.

 

So I have to say that these drugs, when needed and correctly prescribed,

can save sight, quality of life, and even life itself. I hate to see

knowledgeable people condemning all prescription drugs out of hand. We do

not all have the blessings of total good health and these drugs can truly

make miracles.

 

Please take this in the spirit in which it is offered. I do not wish to

start an argument.

 

Ida

 

-

" David Lambert " <dlmbrt

 

Sunday, November 05, 2006 11:26 AM

RE: A Chicken In Every Pot is Now A Prescription

Drug In Every Cabinet

 

 

I am one of the ONLY people I know personally who is not on, nor has an

immediate family member on, prescription drugs of one type or another -

and with everyone on these meds, :(I honestly don't see folks getting any

healthier! Quite the contrary in fact

[Guest guest]

So I have to say that these drugs, when needed and correctly prescribed, can

save sight, quality of life, and even life itself. I hate to see

knowledgeable people condemning all prescription drugs out of hand. We do

not all have the blessings of total good health and these drugs can truly

make miracles.

 

=======Also, ultimately, the individual is responsible for their own health

care -- " just give me a prescription, so I can get back to work... "

 

I'm also one of those on a life-time Rx that makes a difference in my life.

I'd get along without it, but not as well.

 

Susan H.

[Guest guest]

I am not much of a poster but I do need to make some response to this. It

is easy not to be on prescription drugs when you do not have a chronic and

yet treatable condition.

 

[Dave:] I knew someone would bring this up, and you are absolutely correct

of course. Not many people would argue that we should not have any doctors

or prescriptions – and those who do would change their tune fast, when they

or a family member becomes seriously ill. Still, we all know there’s a huge

amount of marketing of drugs that are either useless or harmful. This is a

multibillion dollar industry, and it’s in bed with both the medical and

insurance industries.

 

But when you say, " I honestly don't see folks getting any healthier! Quite

the contrary in fact, " I have to disagree.

 

[Dave:] I do too, but only up to a point. My wife has fibromyalgia and is

partially disabled. Without prescriptions, she would suffer a great deal

more than she does. Nevertheless, we have discovered that eliminating

chemicals from our diet and our surroundings (this is how I got into

soapmaking) has had at least as much benefit as the drugs. Good nutrition,

exercise and a happy spirit are truly essential no matter what, and these

are not things you can get except by owning your own life and health.

 

Among my family and friends and

myself are people with glaucoma--prescript-ion drops have brought down the

eye pressure and basically saved the person's sight

 

[Dave:] I can’t resist pointing out that there’s a natural remedy for

glaucoma that works. It does happen to be illegal. You smoke it. I’m

speaking of course of marijuana. This is the hemp plant, which is one of

the two or three most useful plants in history. The story of why and how it

became illegal back in 1937 is fascinating.

 

 

So I have to say that these drugs, when needed and correctly prescribed,

can save sight, quality of life, and even life itself.

 

[Dave:] With this I totally agree.

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nobody in my immediate family

is on anything!

My kids are 32 and 27.

 

Ien in the Kootenays

http://profiles./free_green_living

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ida wrote:

So I have to say that these drugs, when needed and correctly prescribed,

can save sight, quality of life, and even life itself. I hate to see

knowledgeable people condemning all prescription drugs out of hand. We do

not all have the blessings of total good health and these drugs can truly

make miracles.>

 

Point taken and well made.

Take me to the dentist and I give fervent

thanks for the advances of modern medicine.

 

We need to break down the walls between

so-called allopathic medicine and our natural

ways.

Think And/And instead of either/or.

 

Ien in the Kootenays

http://profiles./free_green_living

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey folks,

 

I just got home from the Tae Kwon Do tournament and I am proud to say

that my son got a Bronze Medal in Form and a Gold Medal in Breaking (6

broken boards) !

 

Now, I have glanced at my e-mail and quickly want to say a few quick

things about this thread .. first off - I was/am not putting anyone who

is taking Rx's down! What I am is trashing a system that makes half the

population think they need an Rx med - whether they really do or not!

 

If you are taking an Rx med ... do you really need to? Maybe you darn

well do, cause there are things out there that are helped by Rx's that

are out there ... but if you don't and there's another way to help you,

maybe even one that is even more beneficial since it has with less

chance of an Rx related side effect .... unfortunately you may never

find out about it, unless you do the research yourself or go to one of

those " Voodoo " doctors

 

I am sure that many of the folks (docs, nurses, etc ...) who dedicate

themselves our current mainstream healthcare profession have warm

hearts, wonderful intentions and want to help people. Heck, one of my

longest friend's wife is a Pediatrician, my Grandmother is a Nurse, my

Aunt is a Physicians Assistant, my Uncle in a Nutritionist (who scares

me cause he works for companies R & D depts. developing things like

Calcium Enriched Pringles and eats terribly).

 

The bad thing though is the schools they learn from are run by a system

that is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies, who for the most

part have proven time again that they do not necessarily have our best

health interests at heart ... so they end up going with that " school of

though " and dole out the prescriptions they've been taught were the way

to go. Also, I know that many docs talk about their prescribing being

influenced by patients asking them for drugs they saw advertised on TV

and also the reps from the pharmaceutical companies themselves who come

into the office all the time with free samples, promos, etc ...

 

As far as my statement that " I honestly don't see folks getting any

healthier! Quite the contrary in fact " - I do stand by that, but I

should have worded it as " the general public at large " rather than

saying " folks " because I really was referring to the population as a

whole, rather than anyone's individual situation and experience.

 

Now, I am off to make a celebration supper!

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

<http://www.alittleolfactory.com> http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Chris,

The numbers are staggering especially when you look at the over

sixty five population. It is very common for this age group to be

taking multiple medications. I see it everyday.

 

Your children are 7 and 3, mine are 8 and 4. Have they taken any

drugs or shots? My son had his first round but my daughter no. Do

they get sick? Not often. When they do, it is nothing compared to

other children in the neighbor or school.

 

We are not perfect and far from it. The only difference that I see

is we look to ourselves for the answers. We do not seek another to

tell us what our problems are and then take what they tell us as the

only truth. We also do not eat what everyone seems to think is

a " normal " diet.

 

What is actually going on?..You ain't a dumb Yankee! in fact maybe

pretty smart.

 

I will have to try your soap soon.

 

See ya,

John

 

http://www.ancienthealingoils.com

 

 

, " Christine Ziegler "

<chrisziggy wrote:

>

> First, I want to preface this post by saying - folks .. I am NOT A

> CONSPIRACY THEORIST ... I know several of them .. and they really

tick

> me off *lol*

>

> That being said .. doesn't crap like this really make folks raise

an

> eyebrow????

>

> Almost Half of Americans Use at Least One Prescription Drug Annual

> Report on Nation's Health Shows

> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/hus04.htm

> (This report is published in 12/04 .. does anyone here think the

numbers

> have significantly decreased?)

>

> I am one of the ONLY people I know personally who is not on, nor

has an

> immediate family member on, prescription drugs of one type or

another -

> and with everyone on these meds, I honestly don't see folks

getting any

> healthier! Quite the contrary in fact

>

> My kids are 7 and 3 and neither has ever had an allopathic

prescription!

> Are we the ultimate beings in the gene pool .. I very highly doubt

it!

>

> What is actually going on? I don't know ... I'm just some dumb

young

> Yankee living in the SE tip of the Southwest ...

>

> Now, off my soap box and on to making - well - soap! {grinz}

>

> *Smile*

> Chris (list mom)

> http://www.alittleolfactory.com <http://www.alittleolfactory.com/>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " blckfox " <John wrote:

>

> Hey Chris,

> The numbers are staggering especially when you look at the over

> sixty five population. It is very common for this age group to be

> taking multiple medications. I see it everyday.

>

--------------------------

Sure, but the reality is that life expectancy is extended by

medication. There's a real good chance that that 65 or over person

wouldn't be around, or they would be incapicated without those meds.

It wasn't that long ago that being crippled by arthritis, or slipping

into dementia was just considered part of getting old, and therefore,

unavoidable. When I was young, if someone hit 70 that was really,

really old. Death or disability was accepted as likely after sixty.

At 55, I would have died 10 years ago from my thyroid condition. My

diabetic nephew would have died by 20. And there are a lot of children

that survived that would not have made it in the past because of one

weakness or another, and pregnancies that make it full term that would

have miscarried in the past. So we have altered that old " survival of

the fittest " thing. People are living longer, and many of them are

people that would not be living at all without meds.

 

Sure there are hack doctors. But a good physician doesn't dispense

medication just because someone asks for it. In my vigorous and

healthy youth I thought it was crazy how many people took meds, until

I needed them myself.

Joanne

[Guest guest]

Sure, but the reality is that life expectancy is extended by

medication. There's a real good chance that that 65 or over person

wouldn't be around, or they would be incapicated without those meds.

 

[Dave:] I’m hoping this won’t become a polarized discussion. On the one

hand is the mainstream view: trust your doctor. He knows what’s best for

you. On the other hand is: all drugs are useless and the drug companies

are in bed with your doctor to take advantage of the gullible public. In

different circumstances, both are true and neither are true. Of course

there are good doctors. Of course there are great drugs. There are also

pill-pushers, doctors who neither know nor care about the role of nutrition

and the spirit in vibrant health. And, there is a HUGE industry – Big

Pharma – that has now decided to take their pitch directly to the public,

which I think is a huge mistake.

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release 11/4/2006

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

[Dave:] I'm hoping this won't become a polarized discussion. On the one

hand is the mainstream view: trust your doctor. He knows what's best for

you. On the other hand is: all drugs are useless and the drug companies

are in bed with your doctor to take advantage of the gullible public. In

different circumstances, both are true and neither are true. Of course

there are good doctors. Of course there are great drugs. There are also

pill-pushers, doctors who neither know nor care about the role of nutrition

and the spirit in vibrant health. And, there is a HUGE industry - Big

Pharma - that has now decided to take their pitch directly to the public,

which I think is a huge mistake.

 

===============Why don't we push personal responsibility instead of blaming

either side? Its my body, ultimately, it's my decision and my

responsibility. As for the Big Pharma -- I like knowing what drugs are out

there. I don't need them, but someday I, or someone I care about, might. If

I'm going to take responsibility for my own health, I need to know what's

available. Depending on one doctor's opinion, no matter how well I might

think of him, isn't enough for me. I want to know all my options. Why should

pharmacists and doctors be the only ones with all that information? Inform

me...I'm the one who has to decide.

 

Susan H.

[Guest guest]

THIS is what I was pointing out in my original post with this subject

line ..

 

" The sale of prescription drugs has more than doubled in the U.S. during

the past 8 years. In 1990, Americans spent $37.7 billion on

prescriptions; in 1997, national spending on prescriptions reached 78.9

billion.[3] Prescription drugs are the fastest-growing portion of

health-care costs, having risen at the rate of 17% per year for the past

few years.[3]

 

Urging physicians to prescribe particular drugs -- especially new drugs

-- is a huge business. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the sales force

of the largest 40 drug companies has " exploded " in recent years.[3] In

1994, there were 35,000 full-time " detail people " employed by drug

companies to visit doctors and describe pharmaceutical products; by

1998, the number had grown to 56,000 -- one sales person for every 11

physicians.[3] Drug companies spent $5.3 billion in the first 11 months

of 1998 sending their " detail people " into doctors' offices and

hospitals, plus another $1 billion putting on " marketing events " for

doctors.

 

This info is from an article written back in 1998! I'll go and find the

latest stats is anyone here doesn't believe its grown far more since

then!

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom - who is NOT a belligerent wacko conspiracy theorist

against all prescription drugs, western medicine and everything

conventional

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Read the entire article here:

http://consumerlawpage.com/article/drugs_that_kill.shtml

 

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT KILL: ANOTHER KIND OF DRUG PROBLEM

 

 

By Peter Montague, Editor

 

 

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY

 

 

A medical report in 1998 estimated that adverse reactions to

prescription drugs are killing about 106,000 Americans each year --

roughly three times as many as are killed by automobiles.[1] This makes

prescription drugs the fourth leading killer in the U.S., after heart

disease, cancer, and stroke. The report included only drugs that were

given properly and under normal circumstances, excluding drugs that were

administered in error or taken in attempted suicides. (When errors of

administration are included, the death toll may be as high as 140,000

per year.[2] Such errors include prescribing the wrong drug or the wrong

dosage; giving medications to the wrong person; giving medications to

the right person but in the wrong quantities or the wrong frequencies,

and so forth.)

 

According to the 1998 report, which analyzed the data from 39 separate

studies conducted over the last 32 years in U.S. hospitals, 3.2 out of

every 1000 (or 3200 per million) hospital patients die from adverse

reactions to prescription drugs. Of the 106,000 people killed each year

by prescription drugs in the U.S., 41% (43,000) were admitted to the

hospital because of an adverse drug reaction; the other 59% (63,000

people) were hospitalized for some other cause but developed a fatal

reaction to prescription drugs they received while hospitalized. In the

U.S. in 1994, there were 33,125,492 hospital admissions.

 

The sale of prescription drugs has more than doubled in the U.S. during

the past 8 years. In 1990, Americans spent $37.7 billion on

prescriptions; in 1997, national spending on prescriptions reached 78.9

billion.[3] Prescription drugs are the fastest-growing portion of

health-care costs, having risen at the rate of 17% per year for the past

few years.[3]

 

Urging physicians to prescribe particular drugs -- especially new drugs

-- is a huge business. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the sales force

of the largest 40 drug companies has " exploded " in recent years.[3] In

1994, there were 35,000 full-time " detail people " employed by drug

companies to visit doctors and describe pharmaceutical products; by

1998, the number had grown to 56,000 -- one sales person for every 11

physicians.[3] Drug companies spent $5.3 billion in the first 11 months

of 1998 sending their " detail people " into doctors' offices and

hospitals, plus another $1 billion putting on " marketing events " for

doctors.

 

Not all adverse reactions to new drugs can be anticipated or avoided

under the present system, according to medical experts. " It is simply

not possible to identify all the adverse effects of drugs before they

are marketed, " say three physicians writing in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL

OF MEDICINE.[4] In fact, " Overall, 51% of approved drugs have serious

side effects not detected prior to approval. " [5]

 

Side effects from new drugs cannot be anticipated for 2 main reasons:

(1) Individuals vary greatly in their reactions to chemical substances;

and (2) drugs are tested rare side effects may not appear in such a

small group but may become painfully obvious when millions of people

start taking the drug. Even a few years ago, drugs reached a mass

audience slowly, providing time for unexpected side effects to show up

in relatively small numbers of people. But today drugs are marketed

directly to consumers via TV, so a huge market for a new product can be

created quickly and side effects can appear in large numbers of people.

The sexual potency drug, Viagra, provides an example of this phenomenon.

Within a few months of its introduction, several million people began

taking Viagra, and many serious side effects, including fatalities,

suddenly appeared.

 

Despite the widespread knowledge that half of all new drugs will cause

serious side effects in some people, neither the government nor the drug

companies systematically collect information on adverse reactions to new

drugs. " Even when it is recognized that a new drug will be given to many

patients for many years, rarely are systematic post-marketing studies

carried out. " [4]

 

In the U.S., there is no formal procedure for monitoring drug safety. If

physicians became aware that a new drug has killed or maimed one of

their patients, or caused an allergic reaction, they may report it but

they also may not. As reports filter into the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) in hit-or-miss fashion, FDA can revoke the approval

of a drug, and sometimes does, but almost never quickly. In December,

1997, the popular nonsedating antihistamine terfenadine was withdrawn

from the market because a safer alternative existed without

terfenadine's danger of a potentially fatal heart arrhythmia (irregular

heart beat). However, by that time terfenadine had been on the market 12

years. Last September the FDA took the diet drugs fenfluramine and

dexfenluramine off the market because of heart valve damage to 31% of

those who took the drugs in combination with another diet pill,

phentermine (a combination known as fen/- phen) Fenfluramine could also

damage heart valves when taken alone. By the time fenfluramine was

banned, it had been on the market for 24 years.

 

A recent commentary by three doctors, published in the NEW ENGLAND

JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, contrasted prescription drug safety with airline

safety.

 

Airplanes are built, licensed and flown according to standards set by

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). But whenever a plane crash

occurs, a different agency (the National Transportation Safety Board, or

NTSB) steps in to establish the facts and make recommendations for

avoiding future crashes. The assumption is that a second, independent

agency is needed because the FAA would have a conflict of interest

investigating crashes of planes it had approved and licensed.

 

In drug safety, on the other hand, there is only one agency. The Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) approves pharmaceuticals and it also has

responsibility for investigating injuries and deaths caused by those

pharmaceuticals. As we have seen, FDA has a very limited capacity to

conduct surveillance studies so, in fact, they rely on the drug

companies to provide data on deaths and illnesses caused by their own

products.

 

As mentioned above, the diet drug dexfenfluramine was taken off the

market in 1997 because, combined with phentermine (the fen/- phen

diet-pill combination), it damaged heart valves.[4] When the FDA learned

that dexfenfluramine was dangerous, the agency had no good data on the

total number of people harmed. At the time, the director of FDA's Office

of Epidemiology and Biostatistics said, defensively, " We've done what is

necessary to determine there is a problem. Other information is up to

American Home Products [which marketed dexfenfluramine] to find out. " Of

course American Home Products had little incentive to investigate the

number of problems caused by its product.

 

The three doctors comment, " Given the litigious climate surrounding

issues of drug safety, information from investigations conducted by

parties with vested interests is unlikely to be impartial and is seldom

publicly available to improve future decision making. "

 

The three doctors say an independent drug safety board -- analogous to

the National Transportation Safety Board -- is needed to study deaths

and illnesses from drugs. They point out that FDA officials spend up to

a year of their lives evaluating a drug before approving it for

marketing " and it is unlikely that those who recommended a drug for

approval could later conduct a dispassionate evaluation of possible harm

due to that drug. "

 

According to a recent commentary in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL

ASSOCIATION, a competent drug safety program would have four parts:

 

(1) A program to monitor all adverse effects from prescription drugs and

annually report the number of injuries and deaths and their likely

causes. Currently no one keeps such statistics.

 

(2) A program to monitor side effects from new drugs. Presently, the

FDA's Division of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology (DPE) has a staff

of 52 people, but only 8 of those have MD degrees and only one has a

Ph.D. in epidemiology. This small group collects anecdotal information

about side effects of new drugs, but hasn't the resources to be

systematic or thorough.

 

The problem with anecdotal information is that only about 1% of adverse

drug reactions get reported in this way. For example, the FDA received

an average of 82 reports each year about adverse reactions caused by the

drug digoxin. This relatively small number of reports seemed to indicate

that digoxin was not a big problem. However a systematic survey of

Medicare records revealed 202,211 hospitalizations for adverse reactions

to digoxin during a seven-year period.

 

When FDA's DPE identifies a drug problem, they can only pass the

information along to the division of FDA that approved the drug. That

division can require the manufacturer to develop additional information.

However, " The most common corrective action is a change in the product

disclosure label or package insert. " [5] The question then becomes, are

such warnings effective?

 

(3) The third part of a competent drug safety program would make sure

that safety information is being disseminated and heeded by physicians.

FDA currently has no such program. " The limited information available,

however, suggests that some important safety information--such as boxed

warnings on drug disclosure labels--either was not received or had

little effect. For example, one outcome of the protracted debate over

the safety of the sedative triazolam was a new drug label warning that

it should be prescribed for only 7 to 10 days. Several years later an

FDA task force reported that 85% of the prescriptions were being written

for longer periods.... Neither the FDA nor any other agency has an

organized program to find out whether the important warning messages are

achieving their intended purpose of protecting the public and, if not,

discovering the cause. " [5]

 

(4) The fourth part of a competent drug safety program would

aggressively seek out information about unsuspected adverse reactions to

drugs. Instead of waiting passively for anecdotal information to filter

in, the government needs to aggressively look for drug involvement in

reported birth defects, heart problems and other common disorders that

are frequently caused by prescription drugs. In the same way that the

world's public health specialists aggressively seek out new strains of

influenza, FDA needs to be aggressively seeking out new side effects of

drugs.

 

Rather than strengthening the U.S. government's drug safety programs,

the present Congress has recently diminished the powers of the FDA to

monitor drug safety. Congress now allows drug companies to pay fees

which FDA uses to speed up the approval process for new drugs. As a

result, during 1996-1997, FDA approved 92 new drugs for market -- twice

the previous rate. However, Congress specifically prohibited FDA from

using any of the new money for monitoring drug safety.[4]

 

[1] Jason Lazarou and others, " Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in

Hospitalized Patients, " JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol.

279, No. 15 (April 15, 1998), pgs. 1200-1205. And see: David W. Bates,

" Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions; How Worried Should We Be?

[editorial] " JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 279, No.

15 (April 15, 1998), pgs. 1216-1217.

 

[2] David C. Classen and others, " Adverse Drug Events in Hospitalized

Patients, " JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 277, No. 4

(January 22/29, 1997), pgs. 301-306.

 

[3] Abigail Zuger, " Fever Pitch: Getting Doctors To Prescribe Is Big

Business, " NEW YORK TIMES January 11, 1999, pgs. A1, A13.

 

[4] Alastair J.J. Wood and others, " Making Medicines Safer -- The Need

for an Independent Drug Safety Board, " NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Vol. 339, No. 25 (December 17, 1998), pgs. 1851-1854.

 

[5] Thomas J. Moore and others, " Time to Act on Drug Safety, " JOURNAL OF

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 279, No. 19 (May 20, 1998), pgs.

1571-1573.

 

################################################################

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bottom line is this always someone who will have a bad reaction to anything -

medicine or not. Hay fever is a perfect example. It is not caused by any

medication but many people have that reaction to what plants naturally have.

Because I know people who have had polio, I saw for my self how it has affected

them their entire life (my ex-husband is one) and I made certain that my

children and grand children had their vaccine against it. Would they have gotten

polio without the vaccine ? Maybe, maybe not. But that is a gamble that I was

not going to make.

Paula .......... in Michigan

coming soon - Farm Fresh Soaps and Candles.com !!!

Sure, but the reality is that life expectancy is extended by

medication. There's a real good chance that that 65 or over person

wouldn't be around, or they would be incapicated without those meds.

 

[Dave:] I'm hoping this won't become a polarized discussion. On the one

hand is the mainstream view: trust your doctor. He knows what's best for

you. On the other hand is: all drugs are useless and the drug companies

are in bed with your doctor to take advantage of the gullible public. In

different circumstances, both are true and neither are true. Of course

there are good doctors. Of course there are great drugs. There are also

pill-pushers, doctors who neither know nor care about the role of nutrition

and the spirit in vibrant health. And, there is a HUGE industry - Big

Pharma - that has now decided to take their pitch directly to the public,

which I think is a huge mistake.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

============-===Why don't we push personal responsibility instead of blaming

either side… Inform

me...I'm the one who has to decide.

 

[Dave:] I agree. Those who simply believe what they’re told often get worse

than they deserve. I’m sure we can all think of examples.

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.29/520 - Release 11/6/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.29/520 - Release 11/6/2006

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " paula coon " <paulacoon

wrote:

> [Dave:] I'm hoping this won't become a polarized discussion. On

the one

> hand is the mainstream view: trust your doctor. He knows

what's best for

> you. On the other hand is: all drugs are useless and the drug

companies

> are in bed with your doctor to take advantage of the gullible

public. In

> different circumstances, both are true and neither are true. Of

course

> there are good doctors. Of course there are great drugs. There

are also

> pill-pushers, doctors who neither know nor care about the role

of nutrition

> and the spirit in vibrant health. And, there is a HUGE

industry - Big

> Pharma - that has now decided to take their pitch directly to

the public,

> which I think is a huge mistake.

------

I think the " trust your doctor " thing is a holdover from the last

generation. Most people I know question, and also with the Internet,

it is a lot easier to get information. You don't have to rely on

your doctor for it. Also, medical schools are changing the way they

teach and they are including more info on alternatives and nutrition.

 

Drug companies do like pushing new drugs, and they do a lot to

encourage doctors to do it. Next time you are in the Doctor's office

notice how many things have advertising on them. All freebees from

the drug salesmen.

 

On the other hand, I know doctors who take all the free drug samples

they can get so that they can give them to folks who cannot afford

their meds. And many doctors openly discuss the costs of

prescriptions with you as they know that there is a lot of non-

compliance as the result of cost.

 

Information is never a mistake, so I think the advertising of drugs

to the public is not completely off base. However, I would like to

see it geared more toward education and not so much toward selling

drugs as a panacea for everything. In the past, we never knew what

was available. I like to know all the options. But for sure,

Celebrex does not send a person with arthritis galloping through a

field of flowers.

 

This subject is much like the whole legal system/voting thing is

that the bottom line is that no system or society works without the

active participation of its members. That's what freedom is all

about, if you want it, you have to do the work of it.

Joanne

[Guest guest]

This subject is much like the whole legal system/voting thing is

that the bottom line is that no system or society works without the

active participation of its members. That's what freedom is all

about, if you want it, you have to do the work of it.

Joanne

 

[Dave:] Well said.

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release 11/7/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release 11/7/2006

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Why don't we push personal responsibility instead of blaming either

side… Inform me...I'm the one who has to decide.<

>

>> [Dave:] I agree. Those who simply believe what they're told often

get worse than they deserve. I'm sure we can all think of examples.<<

 

My 79 year old father would not be alive right now if it were not for

pharmaceuticals.

 

It's a mixed blessing; my father would not be living in a

rehab/skilled nursing facility with a feeding tube in his stomach, a

trach tube in his throat, hooked up to oxygen and humidified air in

order to keep breathing. He's bedridden, hasn't walked since June

28th, the day he went into the hospital with a back ache.

 

Now, if his doctor...the one he trusted with his life and believed

in, had actually tried to find out WHY the man had a back ache for

the previous two weeks instead of just giving him pain meds, shots,

and more pain meds...perhaps he would not have had to call 9-11 when

he woke up unable to move.

 

And if the hospital didn't assume the Doctor's evaluation was

correct; must be a compressed disk...the growing bladder infection

and/or the gallbladder tumor might have been treated instead of just

giving the old man morphine day after day until he finally was so

drugged he aspirated stomach contents into his lungs and went into a

coma. He ended up with a bladder infection, pneumonia, and went into

septic shock. Almost died from that, then from the 79 pounds of

water weight he gained from the shock and the accompnying congestive

heart failure, and even later...from the heart attack he suffered.

And yet he has survived it all...thanks to pharmaceuticals.

 

Only he will probably live out his live in a nursing home. We still

hold out hope he might progress far enough in rehab to make it to

Assisted Living. He still thinks he could move back home and be the

100% independant person he was before he was under-diagnosed and over-

medicated because he was just one more depressed widower with a back

ache.

 

He is also 100% mentally alert and intelligent and remembers

everything except for the time he was in a coma. And that in spite

of a Neurologist who " promised " us he was brain damaged and would

never be normal again. That was what we were " informed " and thank

Goodness we rejected that doctors opinion and asked for a 2nd

opinion...because his brain is the only part of my 111 pound, skin

and bones, father that is normal today.

 

And they say hindsight is 20/20. Well there was no point in any of

this where there was even an opportunity to NOT try, not have faith

he could make a complete recovery. So his living will with very

specific advanced directives never came into play because that ONLY

helps you if you are terminal. He is neither...just living from

moment to moment. We don't even know what to pray for...for him to

let go, or fight harder.

 

I don't think anyone can really understand how hard " choices " are

until they are faced with the doctors asking " what do you want to

do " . You want to scream " YOU went to Medical School...I

didn't...tell me what to do. " All that " doctors are not God " stuff

goes right out the window, and you just look at them and say " help

us! Help us...we don't KNOW what to do! "

 

All we could do was say time and time again, do what you would do if

it was your father and he never wanted to live in a nursing home but

he also would not want us to give up if he has a chance to have a

vital and happy life. We want choices, we deserve choices; but making

those choices is really so very hard to do.

 

Sue

[Guest guest]

We want choices, we deserve choices; but making

those choices is really so very hard to do.

 

[Dave:] Sue, you’ve expressed the bottom line perfectly. I only wish there

was a perfect bottom line.

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release 11/15/2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release 11/16/2006