This covers them all....Mercola, Becker, Cesar and a few more.

[gemy]

FDA has a lot of warts and so does the Canadian equivalent!/ Don't tell me that drugs such as thalidimide which underwent FDA approval based on *scientific trials* and oh yes how about Vioxx? again approved by FDA and its Canadian counterpart balderdash at the minimum science gets it wrong and somehow our watchdogs are anything but a watchdog! A independent oversight organization needs private funding not bloody funding by the big Pharma companies//// That laughs at bias.


Do you know that anywhere between 15-20% of hospital admissions are for drug interactions!!! That is prescription Rx drug interactions.


That is a huge number! And where is the public outrage about this?


Where are the studies that show why this is so???????


Oh I have taken drugs that could have toxic effects on my liver, heart and kidneys, and now no more - as those self same drugs have negatively affected one of those organs. Oh yes you get the very very very brief laugh at informed consent to these drugs - but I knew because of my research how toxic they were ! Now because of my liver values I am off them for awhile - and we shall see if my liver recovers! How-ever as the drugs DID NOT work and relatively recent research over the past 10yrs show that they have at best50% efficacy but oh yes the biologics similar toxicity but have shown some promise to actually treat the ms disease is about 1500-1800 monthly which is now a crap shoot (not to mention unaffordable)- sic because of my liver values - oh yes thank you very much western science.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Then you to are doing the same.......

Exactly - what's the problem with it when everyone that disagrees with anyone else or even questions them could essentially be accused of starting "drama" as you call it by "nit picking", according to your definition? As long as no one is name-calling and posting within the rules, what's wrong with asking for specifics, asking for source material, what one's post is based on - available scientific studies or one's own empirical evidence/experience on these subjects. Sometimes we'd just like a little more information if the member would care to share the source material.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

Exactly - what's the problem with it when everyone that disagrees with anyone else or even questions them could essentially be accused of starting "drama" as you call it by "nit picking", according to your definition? As long as no one is name-calling and posting within the rules, what's wrong with asking for specifics, asking for source material, what one's post is based on - available scientific studies or one's own empirical evidence/experience on these subjects. Sometimes we'd just like a little more information if the member would care to share the source material.

This is what I would call nit picking. I may be incorrect here, but I don't think you participated in this discussion except to comment about Taylor?

Seems to me that everyone on this thread is working through all of the different opinions without any extraneous comments.

No disrespect, but I just find this distracting.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by gemy

FDA has a lot of warts and so does the Canadian equivalent!/ Don't tell me that drugs such as thalidimide which underwent FDA approval based on *scientific trials* and oh yes how about Vioxx? again approved by FDA and its Canadian counterpart balderdash at the minimum science gets it wrong and somehow our watchdogs are anything but a watchdog! A independent oversight organization needs private funding not bloody funding by the big Pharma companies//// That laughs at bias.


Do you know that anywhere between 15-20% of hospital admissions are for drug interactions!!! That is prescription Rx drug interactions.


That is a huge number! And where is the public outrage about this?


Where are the studies that show why this is so???????


Oh I have taken drugs that could have toxic effects on my liver, heart and kidneys, and now no more - as those self same drugs have negatively affected one of those organs. Oh yes you get the very very very brief laugh at informed consent to these drugs - but I knew because of my research how toxic they were ! Now because of my liver values I am off them for awhile - and we shall see if my liver recovers! How-ever as the drugs DID NOT work and relatively recent research over the past 10yrs show that they have at best50% efficacy but oh yes the biologics similar toxicity but have shown some promise to actually treat the ms disease is about 1500-1800 monthly which is now a crap shoot (not to mention unaffordable)- sic because of my liver values - oh yes thank you very much western science.

FDA has done a lot of stupid things, but approving thalidomide wasn't one of them. (I'm not here to argue, I'm just a stickler for facts.) The FDA denied the application for thalidomide multiple times, but the Canadian agency approved it. I agree that a lot of drug side effects and interactions aren't discovered until after they have been approved. I shudder at the high cost of biologicals and pray I will never need to take one.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

This is what I would call nit picking. I may be incorrect here, but I don't think you participated in this discussion except to comment about Taylor?

Seems to me that everyone on this thread is working through all of the different opinions without any extraneous comments.

No disrespect, but I just find this distracting.

And now you're nitpicking about when a member can get involved and on what subject? Hmmm........

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

FDA has done a lot of stupid things, but approving thalidomide wasn't one of them. (I'm not here to argue, I'm just a stickler for facts.) The FDA denied the application for thalidomide multiple times, but the Canadian agency approved it. I agree that a lot of drug side effects and interactions aren't discovered until after they have been approved. I shudder at the high cost of biologicals and pray I will never need to take one.

Thanks for the correction Phil on the FDA for thalidomide but the thing is a drug should be tested prior approval for *all* its effects. It was someones' brilliant idea to denote a term of *side effects* which can include death, blindness, irreversible organ disease, hypertension, etc etc etc etc.


These so called side effects need to be weighed very very carefully and quite frankly the medical profession does not explain this to the patient well at all. And of course here I talk about human medicine, the veterinary medicine is way way behind human medicine in terms of trials and knowledge


You know it is pretty hard to live without a functioning liver - or to live blind..... And there are some drugs that have this risk that are used in treatment for some chronic *diseases*.


I too very much hope that you never need biologicals - they are not only financially very expensive but have some very very serious health risks

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

And now you're nitpicking about when a member can get involved and on what subject? Hmmm........

LOL you are really serious? SMH

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

LOL you are really serious? SMH

Been following this thread for a long time and wanted to speak up - silly me, thinking that was the way it works - join in at will. Next time, should I ask you how and when I should join in? Kidding. But seriously, what's your problem with me lately? We used to be buds - I thought.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

Been following this thread for a long time and wanted to speak up - silly me, thinking that was the way it works - join in at will. Next time, should I ask you how and when I should join in? Kidding. But seriously, what's your problem with me lately? We used to be buds - I thought.

I am not doing this with you. It was not personal. You have a problem with another's posts and I simply had a problem with yours. Don't need to inject anything else into it.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

I am not doing this with you. It was not personal. You have a problem with another's posts and I simply had a problem with yours. Don't need to inject anything else into it.

Not doing what with me? Just seemed a tad tense. And I know you never get personal. I did post days earlier, if that matters. Still don't see anything wrong that I pointed out to Taylor she was doing the same thing she accused Gail of, she accused me back and I agreed with her, asked what was wrong with nitpicking, asking for specifics as Gail was doing and then you chimed in with still another "nitpick" - all over Gail and I wanting the same thing.

Anyway, back to what Gail was asking about. Did we ever get an answer to Gail's question? Is there anything to prove that test is not a valid test - that it's results are worthless or something? I like source documents to read where available and would like to know what other research has disproved the test.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

I do agree with some of what you have said but I think it is very dangerous to dismiss all drugs on the basis of bias etc. Alzheimer's drugs, MS drugs and even influenza, measles, mumps, rubella and POLO have all benefitted from reduced symptomology, delay in progression or eradicated altogether.


Lots of people claim drugs are responsible for a lot of things negative and dismiss all of the positive which is why some of these diseases, like measles etc. have resurfaced amongst children. A lot of people forget that measles can and DOES kill and inoculations are the reason so many kids have been saved from death.


I think bias is something to be aware of but it isn't the be all and end all in terms of medicinal efficacy for humans or non-human animals.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

FDA has a lot of warts and so does the Canadian equivalent!/ Don't tell me that drugs such as thalidimide which underwent FDA approval based on *scientific trials* and oh yes how about Vioxx? again approved by FDA and its Canadian counterpart balderdash at the minimum science gets it wrong and somehow our watchdogs are anything but a watchdog! A independent oversight organization needs private funding not bloody funding by the big Pharma companies//// That laughs at bias.


Do you know that anywhere between 15-20% of hospital admissions are for drug interactions!!! That is prescription Rx drug interactions.


That is a huge number! And where is the public outrage about this?


Where are the studies that show why this is so???????


Oh I have taken drugs that could have toxic effects on my liver, heart and kidneys, and now no more - as those self same drugs have negatively affected one of those organs. Oh yes you get the very very very brief laugh at informed consent to these drugs - but I knew because of my research how toxic they were ! Now because of my liver values I am off them for awhile - and we shall see if my liver recovers! How-ever as the drugs DID NOT work and relatively recent research over the past 10yrs show that they have at best50% efficacy but oh yes the biologics similar toxicity but have shown some promise to actually treat the ms disease is about 1500-1800 monthly which is now a crap shoot (not to mention unaffordable)- sic because of my liver values - oh yes thank you very much western science.

No, I had not heard this. Where are those figures from?

[ladyjane]

I just scanned a couple of articles and see that there are a handful of meds that cause adverse drug reactions, BUT these are medications that are very successful and necessary in certain medical conditions. Warfarin and insulin are at the top of the list...if they are not used correctly, then yes, there will be adverse events. I don't know if they classify that as a "reaction" or "event" or if they are the same.

Same thing with Vioxx. It was a very effective drug and I was extremely upset when it was removed from the market. I knew the side effects when it was prescribed....I used it as it was intended to be used and I had no medical issues that would increase the likelihood of a reaction. It was like a miracle drug for me and nothing has ever been the same since. I don't care much for narcotics and take Ibuprofen daily. It too can cause problems if not used correctly. Many people did not take Vioxx properly and sadly it was overused and prescribed to people who had were high risk for cardiac issues.

[Lovetodream88]

We also don't know how many hospitalizations are from reactions and side effects to herbs and supplements mostly because there not known it could be even highier. I wounder how many hospitalizations there are of people in terrible shape because they waited to long to get medical help because they thought they could cure themselves with herbs or supplements? No matter how crappy some regulations seem some is certainly better then none. I would love to see people who bash medicines go there whole live only ever using herbs and supplements and then see how that goes. There is good and bad with everything but at least we know what can happen with medicines vs herbs and supplements. These medicines people want to complain about save lives and make lives better. I take the risk of the side effects my depression, anxiety, and OCD meds have because it makes life a bit more bare able. I take birth control pills even with the side effects because I bleed for a full year ended up anemic and sent to the hospital for a blood transfusion but luckily I had been on the iron pills for enough days to work enough. I also take one that only gives me periods every three months and take the risk because having a period every month made me anemic again. I am willing to take the risks for a better life and my life is certainly not stellar but these meds have helped to make it better a livable.

[107barney]

We do not know how many are due to misuse of Rx drugs (ie on the street usages).