I guess it’s not enough that people everywhere are urged to get a flu vaccination every year, now we have to worry about our dogs as well.
I just received an urgent e-mail written in large text in various shades of RED, urging me to vaccinate my dog against canine influenza due to an outbreak in my county.
I’m not worried. First, because unfortunately my dog passed away almost a year ago, and secondly because, according my research:
Canine influenza is a disease of dogs; no evidence exists that people can catch it. Like human flu patients, dogs with canine influenza develop respiratory symptoms such as coughing and sometimes runny noses. And like humans, most dogs that contract the flu will be only mildly sick and recover on their own.
I’m not downplaying the problem of having a sick pet, and I realize respiratory problems in creatures who rely heavily on their noses to detect danger, food, friends etc, can be serious, but I sort of get the idea that, as with people, someone who makes money on selling and administering the vaccine wants to make sure everyone is too scared not to get it.
I had a dog for 12 years and never ONCE even heard of canine influenza. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a thing and pet owners need to be acutely aware of it. Yes, I discovered dog adoptions in the County have been suspended due to an outbreak, and obviously no one wants to take on an already sick pet and be on the hook for medical care that should have been provided and paid for by a shelter, but can we all say it slowly together – OVER RE ACTING?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against vaccines at all, and I don’t want to see any pet become ill any more than I want to be ill myself, but just as with myself, I’m less than enthusiastic about running to the doctor to get shot full of chemicals as a reaction to a panicked e-mail.
Let’s stop all this hyper-awareness and fear-mongering now while we still can. That’s something I’d be willing to be vaccinated against.
Showing posts with label medications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medications. Show all posts
Friday, October 28, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Got side effects?
I was leafing through the September 19th issue of People magazine, and halfway through I had to ask myself if I was looking at an entertainment magazine or a medical journal. Every few pages, I was bombarded with another drug ad, and not just little blurbs, but three-page spreads designed to entice readers to ‘talk to their doctors’ about medicines that ‘could be right for them.’
What shocked me even more than the size of the ads were the lists of side effects they all included. Once again, I have to ask myself, is the cure [or the treatment] worse than the disease?
Here’s what I found:
A three-page ad for Focalin XR – for ADHD –this drug is for children over age 6 – and the side effects include sudden death, stroke and heart attacks, increased blood pressure and heart rate, slowing of growth in children and [among many others] nervousness.
A three page ad for NuvaRing – for birth control – one of the side effects is weight gain and in addition you should worry about blood clots, stroke, heart attack, breast cancer, gallbladder disease, liver tumors and inflammation of the pancreas
A three page ad for BOTOX ® - nothing like injecting yourself with botulism which can cause life threatening side effects
A three page ad for Enbrel – for plaque psoriasis – a host of side effects include: tuberculosis, fatal blood problems, heart problems and new or worsening psoriasis
A three page ad for Seroquel XR – for depression – side effects include weight gain, seizures, neuroleptic malignant syndrome and cataracts
A two-page ad for Boniva – for osteoporosis – the ad includes a correction about misleading information in previous ads – side effects include severe jawbone problems, osteonecrosis [that means bone death], spasms, numbness and thigh bone fractures
Is it any wonder Americans are so sick? We’re being bombarded with drugs to fix our problems, all of which can cause serious other problems, not to mention the same problems we’re trying to get rid of.
What shocked me even more than the size of the ads were the lists of side effects they all included. Once again, I have to ask myself, is the cure [or the treatment] worse than the disease?
Here’s what I found:
A three-page ad for Focalin XR – for ADHD –this drug is for children over age 6 – and the side effects include sudden death, stroke and heart attacks, increased blood pressure and heart rate, slowing of growth in children and [among many others] nervousness.
A three page ad for NuvaRing – for birth control – one of the side effects is weight gain and in addition you should worry about blood clots, stroke, heart attack, breast cancer, gallbladder disease, liver tumors and inflammation of the pancreas
A three page ad for BOTOX ® - nothing like injecting yourself with botulism which can cause life threatening side effects
A three page ad for Enbrel – for plaque psoriasis – a host of side effects include: tuberculosis, fatal blood problems, heart problems and new or worsening psoriasis
A three page ad for Seroquel XR – for depression – side effects include weight gain, seizures, neuroleptic malignant syndrome and cataracts
A two-page ad for Boniva – for osteoporosis – the ad includes a correction about misleading information in previous ads – side effects include severe jawbone problems, osteonecrosis [that means bone death], spasms, numbness and thigh bone fractures
Is it any wonder Americans are so sick? We’re being bombarded with drugs to fix our problems, all of which can cause serious other problems, not to mention the same problems we’re trying to get rid of.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Case Against Medicine
I know, I’ve been gone a while. Life’s been busy and as far as medical and other WTFery, I sometimes get weary of writing about all the ludicrousness I come across.
Having spent a good portion of the last six months not in cyberspace, I can’t say I miss it, but I do miss talking about topics that interest me.
I just finished reading What if Medicine Disappeared by Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. Markle and McCrea are professors of sociology, not medical doctors, which I haven’t yet decided if that helps or hurts their credibility in the field of discussing how the disappearance of the medical profession [generally doctors, surgeons, specialists, pharmaceuticals and hospitals] would effect the morbidity and mortality of the world’s population. They conduct ‘thought’ experiments based on this hypothesis, which is to say they ‘think’ about how things would be, though their discussions of the subject are backed up with interesting facts and figures taken directly from articles published in all the premier medical journals such as JAMA and the Lancet to name a few.
I find it interesting that they use medical studies to prove their points that various aspects of our medical profession are overrated, overpriced and under-efficient. That’s not really news, is it?
Overall I found the book, a rather quick read, to be interesting and thought provoking, especially that one of their main conclusions was that if tobacco products disappeared, the effect on life and health in our nation [and very likely the world] would be far more profound that if doctors disappeared. Meaning far more lives could be saved by the removal of a toxic substance that permeates our society, than would be lost by the removal of those dedicated to healing.
My only complaint about the book is the style is a bit too conversational. Theories are presented interspersed with narrative about the authors eating dinner, raking leaves and watching the flora and fauna around their home as if they were attempting to novelize their story. Without those useless asides, I think the book would have been an even quicker and more informative read.
Overall, despite the mistrust with which I hold the medical profession these days, I can’t say I’d like to see the outcome of a society without doctors, trauma surgeons and emergency rooms. A far more interesting thought experiment would be to imagine the impact on our world if pharmaceutical company stockholders, medical insurance companies and politicians disappeared. I’m sure we’d all lead much happier and healthier lives then.
Having spent a good portion of the last six months not in cyberspace, I can’t say I miss it, but I do miss talking about topics that interest me.
I just finished reading What if Medicine Disappeared by Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. Markle and McCrea are professors of sociology, not medical doctors, which I haven’t yet decided if that helps or hurts their credibility in the field of discussing how the disappearance of the medical profession [generally doctors, surgeons, specialists, pharmaceuticals and hospitals] would effect the morbidity and mortality of the world’s population. They conduct ‘thought’ experiments based on this hypothesis, which is to say they ‘think’ about how things would be, though their discussions of the subject are backed up with interesting facts and figures taken directly from articles published in all the premier medical journals such as JAMA and the Lancet to name a few.
I find it interesting that they use medical studies to prove their points that various aspects of our medical profession are overrated, overpriced and under-efficient. That’s not really news, is it?
Overall I found the book, a rather quick read, to be interesting and thought provoking, especially that one of their main conclusions was that if tobacco products disappeared, the effect on life and health in our nation [and very likely the world] would be far more profound that if doctors disappeared. Meaning far more lives could be saved by the removal of a toxic substance that permeates our society, than would be lost by the removal of those dedicated to healing.
My only complaint about the book is the style is a bit too conversational. Theories are presented interspersed with narrative about the authors eating dinner, raking leaves and watching the flora and fauna around their home as if they were attempting to novelize their story. Without those useless asides, I think the book would have been an even quicker and more informative read.
Overall, despite the mistrust with which I hold the medical profession these days, I can’t say I’d like to see the outcome of a society without doctors, trauma surgeons and emergency rooms. A far more interesting thought experiment would be to imagine the impact on our world if pharmaceutical company stockholders, medical insurance companies and politicians disappeared. I’m sure we’d all lead much happier and healthier lives then.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Feeling old? Take a pill.
People have been searching for the Fountain of Youth for centuries – and ultimately, what they've discovered so far is, you can’t really stay young or stop aging, but now scientists are trying to find a way to make people live longer by mimicking what they call the ‘longevity gene’.
This article from Reuters talks about the pharmaceutical industry’s push to develop a drug that will help people live longer. Scientists are studying centenarians around the world to figure out what in their genetic makeup has contributed to such long lives.
Clearly, as I think the article implies, long life is a factor of luck, having the right genes will help you live longer – of course coupled with a healthy diet and lifestyle. I find it interesting that the ‘answer’ to helping people live longer, healthier lives is automatically thought to be found in drugs. We can make a pill for that!
I have to admit, I find centenarians to be fascinating. What I’ve noticed about those 100-year-olds who appear in the news is that a good portion of them [well, okay, all] – have lived through world wars, many have even served in them. This certainly doesn’t equate to the safe environment the article cites as a factor in long life. Many of these people have held difficult or tedious jobs, they’ve existed at the poverty level in some cases, they’ve raised children and navigated our stressful society or even those deemed more stressful and managed to survive. So how do they really do it? Is it just luck? Good genes, good timing, good life choices? Or is it something the rest of us can really hope to emulate without having to fork over our Medicare Part D dollars for the ‘longevity pill?’
I wish the scientists would take a break from trying to develop new drugs and start really looking at longevity as something inherent in the human condition – something we can all achieve if we know how, not just if our (mandatory) health insurance covers it.
This article from Reuters talks about the pharmaceutical industry’s push to develop a drug that will help people live longer. Scientists are studying centenarians around the world to figure out what in their genetic makeup has contributed to such long lives.
Clearly, as I think the article implies, long life is a factor of luck, having the right genes will help you live longer – of course coupled with a healthy diet and lifestyle. I find it interesting that the ‘answer’ to helping people live longer, healthier lives is automatically thought to be found in drugs. We can make a pill for that!
I have to admit, I find centenarians to be fascinating. What I’ve noticed about those 100-year-olds who appear in the news is that a good portion of them [well, okay, all] – have lived through world wars, many have even served in them. This certainly doesn’t equate to the safe environment the article cites as a factor in long life. Many of these people have held difficult or tedious jobs, they’ve existed at the poverty level in some cases, they’ve raised children and navigated our stressful society or even those deemed more stressful and managed to survive. So how do they really do it? Is it just luck? Good genes, good timing, good life choices? Or is it something the rest of us can really hope to emulate without having to fork over our Medicare Part D dollars for the ‘longevity pill?’
I wish the scientists would take a break from trying to develop new drugs and start really looking at longevity as something inherent in the human condition – something we can all achieve if we know how, not just if our (mandatory) health insurance covers it.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Soon there will be a drug for that
Today I was helping my son with his health homework. His teacher wants the students to bring in articles having to do with health topics and then to write short summaries of the articles. Since I'm always reading about health topcis, I sort of enjoy the fact-finding part of the assignment, I just have to remember not to get too controversial. I don't want to end up being hauled into health class to explain my radical ideas about doctors, drugs and food.
Today's assignment was fairly easy. My son and I went searching on line and found this no-brainer [pun intended] which I thought would make an excellent topic for a junior high school health class.
Apparently researchers have finally discovered what parents have known for centuries. Teenagers are dumb. {Or more accurately, they don't have the same capacity to learn that younger children do.}
Something happens when children hit their teenage years, {let's call it 'puberty'} that seriously impacts their ability to learn.
Well. Duh.
What do we do? We shove a driver's license in their hands and try to teach them to operate 2,000-pound vehicles on overcrowded roads at a time in their lives when they'd be hard pressed to find the cheese at the end of a wooden maze. So who's really dumber, I ask you?
I digress. The real issue with the article isn't the big surprise that the distractions of puberty make learning more difficult during the teen years but the closing sentence:
...and scientists could develop drugs to manipulate how easily kids learn.
That's the ticket right there. The take home message of this study isn't something sensible, like let's redesign the type of things we teach adolscents and play to their strengths or accept that they can't learn too much between the ages of 13 and 19 and concentrate on reinforcing things they learned before that. No. The take home message is: let's make some new drugs! Then being adolescent can be classed as a disease that requires treatment. I'm sure the pharmacutical companies are already salivating over how much money they can make on 'the learning pill.'
Today's assignment was fairly easy. My son and I went searching on line and found this no-brainer [pun intended] which I thought would make an excellent topic for a junior high school health class.
Apparently researchers have finally discovered what parents have known for centuries. Teenagers are dumb. {Or more accurately, they don't have the same capacity to learn that younger children do.}
Something happens when children hit their teenage years, {let's call it 'puberty'} that seriously impacts their ability to learn.
Well. Duh.
What do we do? We shove a driver's license in their hands and try to teach them to operate 2,000-pound vehicles on overcrowded roads at a time in their lives when they'd be hard pressed to find the cheese at the end of a wooden maze. So who's really dumber, I ask you?
I digress. The real issue with the article isn't the big surprise that the distractions of puberty make learning more difficult during the teen years but the closing sentence:
...and scientists could develop drugs to manipulate how easily kids learn.
That's the ticket right there. The take home message of this study isn't something sensible, like let's redesign the type of things we teach adolscents and play to their strengths or accept that they can't learn too much between the ages of 13 and 19 and concentrate on reinforcing things they learned before that. No. The take home message is: let's make some new drugs! Then being adolescent can be classed as a disease that requires treatment. I'm sure the pharmacutical companies are already salivating over how much money they can make on 'the learning pill.'
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Risk vs. benefit - what's worth it?
Yesterday's post was sidelined by computer problems.
Today I'm up an running on a laptop and surfing the web for more imponderables. Today's question - is the benefit really worth the risk?
Apparently the FDA has approved another new diabetes drug called Victoza despite some evidence that the drug may cause a rare form of thyroid cancer. {The Victoza website includes the cancer warning as the first line under Important Safety Information}.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why someone would feel the risk of getting cancer is better than trying some other drug to control diabetes. The instance of cancer may be small [and so far seems only to have occurred in laboratory rats], but nevertheless, why should a patient accept the prospect of a debilitiating [at best] and deadly [at worst] disease in order to fight another debilitating and often deadly disease? What really is the trade off?
Sure it's fine if you're not one of the unlucky few to develop cancer as a side effect of your treatment, but what if you are? Then was the risk worth it?
I think the real issue here is, the cost of defending the pharmaceutical company against lawsuits should someone develop cancer as a result of taking the drug, is minimal compared to the profit the company will make by selling the drug and having their reps convince doctors the drug is safe and effective in most cases.
Let's call a spade a spade here. The financial benefit outweighs the financial risk and the cost of human life has nothing to do with the equation.
Today I'm up an running on a laptop and surfing the web for more imponderables. Today's question - is the benefit really worth the risk?
Apparently the FDA has approved another new diabetes drug called Victoza despite some evidence that the drug may cause a rare form of thyroid cancer. {The Victoza website includes the cancer warning as the first line under Important Safety Information}.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why someone would feel the risk of getting cancer is better than trying some other drug to control diabetes. The instance of cancer may be small [and so far seems only to have occurred in laboratory rats], but nevertheless, why should a patient accept the prospect of a debilitiating [at best] and deadly [at worst] disease in order to fight another debilitating and often deadly disease? What really is the trade off?
Sure it's fine if you're not one of the unlucky few to develop cancer as a side effect of your treatment, but what if you are? Then was the risk worth it?
I think the real issue here is, the cost of defending the pharmaceutical company against lawsuits should someone develop cancer as a result of taking the drug, is minimal compared to the profit the company will make by selling the drug and having their reps convince doctors the drug is safe and effective in most cases.
Let's call a spade a spade here. The financial benefit outweighs the financial risk and the cost of human life has nothing to do with the equation.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Consumer Confidence Takes a Hit
I’ve been reading a lot about prescription drugs and drug companies and the more I read, the more concerned I get.
I came across this New York Times article about the dangers of a diabetes drug called Avandia. Apparently Avandia users have an increased risk of heart attacks and heart failure, but the manufacturer of the drug isn’t quite sure they want to take it off the market.
What’s interesting about this is the FDA tends to concur that a dangerous drug should remain on the market. Their solution is to order the drug manufacturer to conduct a study to find out whether Avandia really does increase the risk of heart problems in diabetic patients.
Now, is it just me, or can you figure out what the results of that study are going to be? I don’t need to be psychic to predict that the drug company will conduct the study and find there is ‘no statistically significant risk’ of heart disease.
I propose what we need in this country is an independent drug study team – one that receives no compensation from the sale of drugs and one that is not affiliated with any agency that receives compensation from pharmaceutical companies. They should conduct unbiased drug studies and publish the results.
Then maybe patients would be safe from deadly side effects...or maybe there would just end up being no drugs at all on the market.
Update: There is an article on this in my local newspaper 2/21/10 which states the FDA estimates 83,000 heart attacks were caused by Avandia. Even with this knowledge in hand, the FDA apparently only required the manufacturer [Glaxo/Smith/Kline] to include a warning on the package stating that the risk of heart attack might be increased.
It makes one wonder how many other drugs are doing more harm than good, but the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing them just having been called out on the problems yet or worse, are just being told by the FDA to put mild warnings on the packages. Again, we’re back to how the industry seems to be training people to accept deadly side effects a natural risk involved in treating an illness. Is it really a reasonable trade off – diabetes or a heart attack?
I don’t think so. How about you?
I came across this New York Times article about the dangers of a diabetes drug called Avandia. Apparently Avandia users have an increased risk of heart attacks and heart failure, but the manufacturer of the drug isn’t quite sure they want to take it off the market.
What’s interesting about this is the FDA tends to concur that a dangerous drug should remain on the market. Their solution is to order the drug manufacturer to conduct a study to find out whether Avandia really does increase the risk of heart problems in diabetic patients.
Now, is it just me, or can you figure out what the results of that study are going to be? I don’t need to be psychic to predict that the drug company will conduct the study and find there is ‘no statistically significant risk’ of heart disease.
I propose what we need in this country is an independent drug study team – one that receives no compensation from the sale of drugs and one that is not affiliated with any agency that receives compensation from pharmaceutical companies. They should conduct unbiased drug studies and publish the results.
Then maybe patients would be safe from deadly side effects...or maybe there would just end up being no drugs at all on the market.
Update: There is an article on this in my local newspaper 2/21/10 which states the FDA estimates 83,000 heart attacks were caused by Avandia. Even with this knowledge in hand, the FDA apparently only required the manufacturer [Glaxo/Smith/Kline] to include a warning on the package stating that the risk of heart attack might be increased.
It makes one wonder how many other drugs are doing more harm than good, but the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing them just having been called out on the problems yet or worse, are just being told by the FDA to put mild warnings on the packages. Again, we’re back to how the industry seems to be training people to accept deadly side effects a natural risk involved in treating an illness. Is it really a reasonable trade off – diabetes or a heart attack?
I don’t think so. How about you?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Maybe there's a pill for that
I’m always looking for a natural way to deal with acid indigestion and acid reflux. This has been one of my crosses to bear for years now – and I know the cause. Being overweight and having a fondness for chocolate [a chief culprit for acid reflex and indigestion] I really have little hope of curing myself unless I drastically change my lifestyle.
Many years ago I took a papaya supplement that helped a bit, but I can’t seem to find it in stores any more, so I’m back to searching for a better method to control my acid reflux and still not give up my chocolate.
Unfortunately I haven’t had much luck and after reading this tidbit over at Natural News I’m not sure I ever will.
Now the article highlights treatments for stomach ulcers as well as acid indigestion. I don’t have an ulcer at the moment, but of course, I don’t want to develop one either. After reading this paragraph at the end, I’m not sure the natural treatment/cure would win any debates against good old-fashioned Western drugs.
Aloe vera is a plant that has properties that can heal and calm ulcers. Studies have shown that patients have had immediate relief and complete recovery from episodes of acute peptic ulcers. The most natural way of taking aloe vera is to simply chop up the spongy leaves into small pieces, soak them in water overnight and then drink one glass of the slimy, bitter water every 2 hours.
It was the slimy and bitter that gave me pause. One reason why so many people are dependent on drugs to deal with the symptoms of disease is that they’re easy to take. Pop a pill and you feel better – or at least your doctor tells you you’re healthier. It’s not difficult for the most part. Drinking something slimy and bitter, no matter what it promises to do for you, is not something most people are going to be comfortable with. I wonder if they can put aloe vera into pill form because the natural solution isn’t going to cure anybody.
*Update: I did two things since I wrote this article that seemed to help my acid reflux. One evening I juiced a pink grapefruit and two oranges and I drank the juice about an hour before bedtime. [Acidic drinks before sleep! Noooo!!!] I went to bed without taking any acid reflux medication and slept all night comfortably. The next night I didn’t drink any fresh squeezed juice, but I just didn’t take any acid reducing medication and I still not have any acid reflux. I’m not sure what really made the difference on those nights, but something worked.
Many years ago I took a papaya supplement that helped a bit, but I can’t seem to find it in stores any more, so I’m back to searching for a better method to control my acid reflux and still not give up my chocolate.
Unfortunately I haven’t had much luck and after reading this tidbit over at Natural News I’m not sure I ever will.
Now the article highlights treatments for stomach ulcers as well as acid indigestion. I don’t have an ulcer at the moment, but of course, I don’t want to develop one either. After reading this paragraph at the end, I’m not sure the natural treatment/cure would win any debates against good old-fashioned Western drugs.
Aloe vera is a plant that has properties that can heal and calm ulcers. Studies have shown that patients have had immediate relief and complete recovery from episodes of acute peptic ulcers. The most natural way of taking aloe vera is to simply chop up the spongy leaves into small pieces, soak them in water overnight and then drink one glass of the slimy, bitter water every 2 hours.
It was the slimy and bitter that gave me pause. One reason why so many people are dependent on drugs to deal with the symptoms of disease is that they’re easy to take. Pop a pill and you feel better – or at least your doctor tells you you’re healthier. It’s not difficult for the most part. Drinking something slimy and bitter, no matter what it promises to do for you, is not something most people are going to be comfortable with. I wonder if they can put aloe vera into pill form because the natural solution isn’t going to cure anybody.
*Update: I did two things since I wrote this article that seemed to help my acid reflux. One evening I juiced a pink grapefruit and two oranges and I drank the juice about an hour before bedtime. [Acidic drinks before sleep! Noooo!!!] I went to bed without taking any acid reflux medication and slept all night comfortably. The next night I didn’t drink any fresh squeezed juice, but I just didn’t take any acid reducing medication and I still not have any acid reflux. I’m not sure what really made the difference on those nights, but something worked.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
I've been bad
Part of the reason I'm writing this blog is to help myself work on a healthier lifestyle. All my research is teaching me a lot of alarming things about the state of health care and what I should really be doing to take better care of myself.
Unfortunately it's not as easy as it sounds. Eating right [not necessarily less], exercising better [not necessarily more] and avoiding bad substances should be fairly easy but it's just not.
For the past three days I've had one of those headaches - it's probably a mixture of sinus, stress and strain. In a perfect world, I'd take a day off, a few long, hot showers, a comfortable nap and spend some time destressing. In the real world, I've got to work three different jobs, clean, cook and coerce at least one of my kids into doing homework. I don't have time to take a day off and work on getting rid of a nagging headache.
So I took OTC meds. Bad, bad, bad. I know. I started with Advil and that didn't make much dent. I moved on to Motrin which helped a little but not completely, then yesterday I went for the big guns, Exedrin Sinus - which did take the edge off, but here it is morning again and I've still got that little twinge at the back of my left shoulder, like a dull arrow pointing at my skull and saying 'I'm headin' thata way!'
I know the more NSAIDs I take, the longer my headache will ultimately last and the odds are I will end up depressed and dealing with a bit of an upset stomach. So what do I do?
Anyone out there have a non-drug headache cure? That doesn't involve moving to a desert island where there no phones, no homework, no job stress, no traffic, and no pollutants? I'm willing to try just about anything.
Unfortunately it's not as easy as it sounds. Eating right [not necessarily less], exercising better [not necessarily more] and avoiding bad substances should be fairly easy but it's just not.
For the past three days I've had one of those headaches - it's probably a mixture of sinus, stress and strain. In a perfect world, I'd take a day off, a few long, hot showers, a comfortable nap and spend some time destressing. In the real world, I've got to work three different jobs, clean, cook and coerce at least one of my kids into doing homework. I don't have time to take a day off and work on getting rid of a nagging headache.
So I took OTC meds. Bad, bad, bad. I know. I started with Advil and that didn't make much dent. I moved on to Motrin which helped a little but not completely, then yesterday I went for the big guns, Exedrin Sinus - which did take the edge off, but here it is morning again and I've still got that little twinge at the back of my left shoulder, like a dull arrow pointing at my skull and saying 'I'm headin' thata way!'
I know the more NSAIDs I take, the longer my headache will ultimately last and the odds are I will end up depressed and dealing with a bit of an upset stomach. So what do I do?
Anyone out there have a non-drug headache cure? That doesn't involve moving to a desert island where there no phones, no homework, no job stress, no traffic, and no pollutants? I'm willing to try just about anything.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Another scary choice
The other day I wrote about the ridiculous choice associated with hormone replacement therapy - possibly help prevent colon cancer, possibly cause a host of other medical problems at the same time.
Here’s another one that leaves me scratching my head.
Depression is a huge problem in this country [and probably an even bigger problem in a lot of others where it goes largely untreated or undiagnosed]. There are hundreds of drugs available to treat depression. They’re regularly prescribed by doctors and judging by the number of people I know who take some form or another of anti-depressant, they’re not hard to get.
Unfortunately, they all have side effects and it seems a lot of the side effects are extremely serious. This one, called Pristiq, which uses a wind-up doll to illustrate the run-down feeling of being depressed, caught my attention on television the other night. The ad discusses the suffering associated with clinical depression and likewise the side effects, warnings and prohibitions in place with regards to taking any drug from this particular class of medications.
Of note: Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, teens, and young adults. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.
So your antidepressant could make you suicidal. Is that really an acceptable risk? At all?
Again, I have to ask why the medical profession thinks it’s okay to give someone a drug to treat a disorder when that drug could actually make the disorder worse. What are they thinking?
Apparently, they are only thinking…they’re not actually knowing, because something I find even more disturbing than the warnings and side effects associated with this drug is this statement which can be found on a subsequent page of the website:
As an SNRI, PRISTIQ is thought to work by affecting the levels of two neurotransmitters believed to play a key role in depression, serotonin and norepinephrine.
It’s ‘thought’ to work in a certain way. It’s not ‘known’ to work, it’s just ‘thought’ to work.
So not only are we supposed to take a medication that could worsen our condition, the researchers who invented the drug aren’t even sure how it works. They invented it! Shouldn’t they know exactly what it’s doing in the body?
I have no doubt there are patients taking this medication and feeling better because of it, but what about the ones who suffer the side effects? Is it worth it to put so many people at risk? I don’t ‘think’ so.
Here’s another one that leaves me scratching my head.
Depression is a huge problem in this country [and probably an even bigger problem in a lot of others where it goes largely untreated or undiagnosed]. There are hundreds of drugs available to treat depression. They’re regularly prescribed by doctors and judging by the number of people I know who take some form or another of anti-depressant, they’re not hard to get.
Unfortunately, they all have side effects and it seems a lot of the side effects are extremely serious. This one, called Pristiq, which uses a wind-up doll to illustrate the run-down feeling of being depressed, caught my attention on television the other night. The ad discusses the suffering associated with clinical depression and likewise the side effects, warnings and prohibitions in place with regards to taking any drug from this particular class of medications.
Of note: Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, teens, and young adults. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.
So your antidepressant could make you suicidal. Is that really an acceptable risk? At all?
Again, I have to ask why the medical profession thinks it’s okay to give someone a drug to treat a disorder when that drug could actually make the disorder worse. What are they thinking?
Apparently, they are only thinking…they’re not actually knowing, because something I find even more disturbing than the warnings and side effects associated with this drug is this statement which can be found on a subsequent page of the website:
As an SNRI, PRISTIQ is thought to work by affecting the levels of two neurotransmitters believed to play a key role in depression, serotonin and norepinephrine.
It’s ‘thought’ to work in a certain way. It’s not ‘known’ to work, it’s just ‘thought’ to work.
So not only are we supposed to take a medication that could worsen our condition, the researchers who invented the drug aren’t even sure how it works. They invented it! Shouldn’t they know exactly what it’s doing in the body?
I have no doubt there are patients taking this medication and feeling better because of it, but what about the ones who suffer the side effects? Is it worth it to put so many people at risk? I don’t ‘think’ so.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Pick your poison
At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?
I’m starting to wonder about a lot of the so called cancer treatments and cancer preventions coming down the pike. Everyone is terrified of cancer, and it seems the medical profession is working over time to find cures or at least treatments that can prolong life, ease suffering or make it less likely for people to get cancer.
What scares me is, it seems like most of the things they’re coming up with cause greater problems.
This article talks about hormone replacement therapy as a possible stop gap in the fight against colon cancer in women. It highlights a study that shows estrogen therapy has some effectiveness in lowering the risk of colon cancer, the controversial side effects of HRT itself notwithstanding.
Is it worth it to risk:
o Endometrial bleeding
o Breast tenderness
o Increased breast density, higher rates of abnormal mammograms and breast biopsies
o Increased risk of cancers, including breast, ovarian, lung, and malignant melanoma
o Cardiovascular events (e.g., heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death)
o Gallbladder disease
o Venous thromboembolic events (blood clots)
o Reduced insulin sensitivity
o Brain atrophy, increased risk of dementia, decline in memory and cognition
in order to prevent colon cancer?
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t understand why we should have to choose between one health risk and another. Good health is good ‘overall’ health. How can the medical profession tout something as being beneficial if it helps one thing while making something else worse?
We all accept side effects of our medications – everything has a down side, even taking aspirin can put you at risk for some other health concern. But should we really accept side effects, especially deadly ones, as just a matter of course? If you use HRT to prevent colon cancer, why should you have to then fear an increased risk for some other disease? In my opinion, something is not truly effective as a disease prevention if it has to the potential to cause another disease. Obviously, if doctors believed this, we would have very little in our pharmaceutical arsenal…but then maybe we could hope to find a medicine that helps without hurting.
Or is that too much to ask?
I’m starting to wonder about a lot of the so called cancer treatments and cancer preventions coming down the pike. Everyone is terrified of cancer, and it seems the medical profession is working over time to find cures or at least treatments that can prolong life, ease suffering or make it less likely for people to get cancer.
What scares me is, it seems like most of the things they’re coming up with cause greater problems.
This article talks about hormone replacement therapy as a possible stop gap in the fight against colon cancer in women. It highlights a study that shows estrogen therapy has some effectiveness in lowering the risk of colon cancer, the controversial side effects of HRT itself notwithstanding.
Is it worth it to risk:
o Endometrial bleeding
o Breast tenderness
o Increased breast density, higher rates of abnormal mammograms and breast biopsies
o Increased risk of cancers, including breast, ovarian, lung, and malignant melanoma
o Cardiovascular events (e.g., heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death)
o Gallbladder disease
o Venous thromboembolic events (blood clots)
o Reduced insulin sensitivity
o Brain atrophy, increased risk of dementia, decline in memory and cognition
in order to prevent colon cancer?
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t understand why we should have to choose between one health risk and another. Good health is good ‘overall’ health. How can the medical profession tout something as being beneficial if it helps one thing while making something else worse?
We all accept side effects of our medications – everything has a down side, even taking aspirin can put you at risk for some other health concern. But should we really accept side effects, especially deadly ones, as just a matter of course? If you use HRT to prevent colon cancer, why should you have to then fear an increased risk for some other disease? In my opinion, something is not truly effective as a disease prevention if it has to the potential to cause another disease. Obviously, if doctors believed this, we would have very little in our pharmaceutical arsenal…but then maybe we could hope to find a medicine that helps without hurting.
Or is that too much to ask?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
An aspirin a day keeps the doctor…on hand?
Since heart disease is still considered to be the number one cause of death in the United States according to the Centers for Disease Control, finding ways to prevent it seems to be foremost on everyone’s mind. For years we’ve been told that low-dose aspirin therapy [an 81mg pill a day] is a good way to promote heart health. With aspirin being inexpensive and easy to get, it seems like good news…but wait, there’s more.
This article at Natural News suggests low-dose aspirin therapy for heart health may be doing more harm than good as this quote indicates:
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), an aspirin a day increases the risk for a hemorrhagic stroke by 84%!(6)
Contrarily, WebMD offers this information on aspirin therapy stating that it does actually reduce the risk of death and it also says aspirin can reduce the risk of stroke. So why does the Journal of the American Medical Association say differently? Even the Mayo Clinic apparently agrees that daily aspirin therapy helps lower the risk of heart attack and stroke.
So once again, the question is, who do we believe? Based on the articles I’ve read recently, aspirin therapy may be a good idea for someone who already has heart disease, but it may not benefit a healthy person as a preventive measure. Supermarkets and pharmacies of course have aspirin readily available and the pharmaceutical companies continue to put out the low-dose forms marketed to people who will pick up the drug on their own and self-medicate thinking they’re doing something good for themselves.
Is it any wonder medical costs are out of control in this country, when we’re encouraged to do something potentially bad for us in the name of being health conscious?
Have you tried aspirin therapy either on your own or on the advice of a doctor? Would you try it, even if you had no history of cardiovascular disease, as a form of prevention? In the past, I have to admit, I might have. It seems like an easy enough thing to do, but now, I’m not so sure. What do you think?
This article at Natural News suggests low-dose aspirin therapy for heart health may be doing more harm than good as this quote indicates:
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), an aspirin a day increases the risk for a hemorrhagic stroke by 84%!(6)
Contrarily, WebMD offers this information on aspirin therapy stating that it does actually reduce the risk of death and it also says aspirin can reduce the risk of stroke. So why does the Journal of the American Medical Association say differently? Even the Mayo Clinic apparently agrees that daily aspirin therapy helps lower the risk of heart attack and stroke.
So once again, the question is, who do we believe? Based on the articles I’ve read recently, aspirin therapy may be a good idea for someone who already has heart disease, but it may not benefit a healthy person as a preventive measure. Supermarkets and pharmacies of course have aspirin readily available and the pharmaceutical companies continue to put out the low-dose forms marketed to people who will pick up the drug on their own and self-medicate thinking they’re doing something good for themselves.
Is it any wonder medical costs are out of control in this country, when we’re encouraged to do something potentially bad for us in the name of being health conscious?
Have you tried aspirin therapy either on your own or on the advice of a doctor? Would you try it, even if you had no history of cardiovascular disease, as a form of prevention? In the past, I have to admit, I might have. It seems like an easy enough thing to do, but now, I’m not so sure. What do you think?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Brushing up on Fluoride
Here’s another modern dilemma – can we really believe what seems to be overwhelming scientific evidence that something is good for us, or should we question the studies that seem to prove the benefits of certain chemicals or medications because those benefits are directly linked to the profits of big business?
Fluoride has been bothering me for a while. I grew up, as I’m sure most Americans have, believing fluoride was good for my teeth. It’s in toothpaste or course. Sometimes it’s in mouthwash, it’s definitely in all the stuff the dentist wants to slather on my teeth, and it can even be found in some municipal water supplies. Fluoride prevents cavities. That’s what the studies show, and according to the Fluoride organization, it’s natural and perfectly safe.
That should be the end of the argument, right? Especially since any dentist will back this all up.
But what about the people who are rallying against fluoride? Here’s just a sampling:
Schachter Center for Complimentary Medicine
Fluoride dangers
NoFluoride.com
LifeScript.com
NaturalNews.com
According to articles posted on these sites and countless others, fluoride is a poison that can cause all manner of health problems. The danger seems to be in ingesting fluoride more so than simply putting in on the teeth, so while fluoride in your toothpaste might not be so bad, if you’re drinking it, or worse if you’re taking it in pill form, you may be doing yourself more harm than good.
My question is, why would so many different sources be so vocal about the dangers of fluoride if it wasn’t true? What do these sources have to gain by stopping people from using fluoride? Is it just an underlying distrust of the government or is there something to all these reports?
On the flipside, why do doctors and dentists seem to swear by fluoride as a prevention for tooth decay if it really doesn’t work? Aren’t they the ones who have first hand scientific knowledge?
What do you think about fluoride? Is all the hype just hype, or are we supposed to remain blissfully ignorant to another health hazard that’s literally right under our noses?
Fluoride has been bothering me for a while. I grew up, as I’m sure most Americans have, believing fluoride was good for my teeth. It’s in toothpaste or course. Sometimes it’s in mouthwash, it’s definitely in all the stuff the dentist wants to slather on my teeth, and it can even be found in some municipal water supplies. Fluoride prevents cavities. That’s what the studies show, and according to the Fluoride organization, it’s natural and perfectly safe.
That should be the end of the argument, right? Especially since any dentist will back this all up.
But what about the people who are rallying against fluoride? Here’s just a sampling:
Schachter Center for Complimentary Medicine
Fluoride dangers
NoFluoride.com
LifeScript.com
NaturalNews.com
According to articles posted on these sites and countless others, fluoride is a poison that can cause all manner of health problems. The danger seems to be in ingesting fluoride more so than simply putting in on the teeth, so while fluoride in your toothpaste might not be so bad, if you’re drinking it, or worse if you’re taking it in pill form, you may be doing yourself more harm than good.
My question is, why would so many different sources be so vocal about the dangers of fluoride if it wasn’t true? What do these sources have to gain by stopping people from using fluoride? Is it just an underlying distrust of the government or is there something to all these reports?
On the flipside, why do doctors and dentists seem to swear by fluoride as a prevention for tooth decay if it really doesn’t work? Aren’t they the ones who have first hand scientific knowledge?
What do you think about fluoride? Is all the hype just hype, or are we supposed to remain blissfully ignorant to another health hazard that’s literally right under our noses?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Unhealth and Beauty
I was never a big fan of Brooke Shields. Nothing against her personally, I’m sure she’s a lovely person, but her movies aren’t on my hit parade.
No matter. It’s not her movies that get under my skin, but the choices she makes when it comes to hawking products on TV. She’s a big advocate of toothpaste – which I have to admit, can be useful. I like minty-fresh breath as much as the next person though I’m beginning to worry about fluoride. [That’s a topic for another post]. Ms. Shields’s recent car commercial was just ridiculous – something about women getting pregnant just so they could buy a certain type of car? Someone at the ad agency dropped the ball with that clunker, but the worst of the lot has to be the ads for Latisse, a prescription drug for growing longer eyelashes.
This product recently made a list of the decades worst beauty products which is not surprising. I find it baffling that anyone is in such dire need of longer eyelashes that they need to paint a drug on their eyelids. I also find it hard to believe that Ms. Shields suffers from a clinical eyelash deficiency, also known as eyelash hypotrichosis.
Speaking from experience with ophthalmological drugs, I can say, it probably does work. My son suffers from glaucoma [he was born with it] and he relies on the medication Xalatan to help control intra-occular pressure in his right eye. The side effects of Xalatan include lengthening of the eyelashes and darkening of the iris. So far his right eye has not changed color despite his having used the drug for the past eight years, but his lashes have grown considerably – so much so that we have had to cut them to keep them from brushing against his glasses.
I looked up eyelash hypotrichosis and didn’t find much about the condition that wasn’t directly linked to ads for Latisse. It makes me wonder if this ‘condition’ is something that really doesn’t pose a problem for the majority of humans. It’s interesting that ads for the medication talk about growing ‘longer, thicker, darker lashes’ but don’t mention much about the medical problem of not having enough eyelashes. It seems to me that Allergan [the maker of Latisse] is plugging a beauty product in its ads more so than a medicine.
I would love to hear from someone with eyelash hypotrichosis or anyone whose doctor has prescribed Latisse. Do you think this is a breakthrough drug that will offer relief to people suffering from a serious medical disorder, or do you think it’s a poorly thought-out beauty gimmick designed to bring the need for longer, thicker lashes out of the OTC makeup game and into the pharmaceutical arena?
Is Latisse a bad beauty product because it's really a medicine? Or is Lastisse a bad medicine because it's really a beauty product?
No matter. It’s not her movies that get under my skin, but the choices she makes when it comes to hawking products on TV. She’s a big advocate of toothpaste – which I have to admit, can be useful. I like minty-fresh breath as much as the next person though I’m beginning to worry about fluoride. [That’s a topic for another post]. Ms. Shields’s recent car commercial was just ridiculous – something about women getting pregnant just so they could buy a certain type of car? Someone at the ad agency dropped the ball with that clunker, but the worst of the lot has to be the ads for Latisse, a prescription drug for growing longer eyelashes.
This product recently made a list of the decades worst beauty products which is not surprising. I find it baffling that anyone is in such dire need of longer eyelashes that they need to paint a drug on their eyelids. I also find it hard to believe that Ms. Shields suffers from a clinical eyelash deficiency, also known as eyelash hypotrichosis.
Speaking from experience with ophthalmological drugs, I can say, it probably does work. My son suffers from glaucoma [he was born with it] and he relies on the medication Xalatan to help control intra-occular pressure in his right eye. The side effects of Xalatan include lengthening of the eyelashes and darkening of the iris. So far his right eye has not changed color despite his having used the drug for the past eight years, but his lashes have grown considerably – so much so that we have had to cut them to keep them from brushing against his glasses.
I looked up eyelash hypotrichosis and didn’t find much about the condition that wasn’t directly linked to ads for Latisse. It makes me wonder if this ‘condition’ is something that really doesn’t pose a problem for the majority of humans. It’s interesting that ads for the medication talk about growing ‘longer, thicker, darker lashes’ but don’t mention much about the medical problem of not having enough eyelashes. It seems to me that Allergan [the maker of Latisse] is plugging a beauty product in its ads more so than a medicine.
I would love to hear from someone with eyelash hypotrichosis or anyone whose doctor has prescribed Latisse. Do you think this is a breakthrough drug that will offer relief to people suffering from a serious medical disorder, or do you think it’s a poorly thought-out beauty gimmick designed to bring the need for longer, thicker lashes out of the OTC makeup game and into the pharmaceutical arena?
Is Latisse a bad beauty product because it's really a medicine? Or is Lastisse a bad medicine because it's really a beauty product?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
