Two evenings ago I went to the ER at a major local hospital because I was having some problems breathing. They took me right in and ran me through a series of tests, in such a way that (for the first time ever) the ER seemed competent. And for that I want to say THANK-YOU. But…. but but but…. they had given me a pretty hefty does of diloted, which did nothing for me (I didn’t know this until they explained that some people just don’t have the receptors for it). So, after making sure I wasn’t going to die, they sent me home…. and sent diloted with me. I said no thank you, they didn’t help and I wouldn’t be taking them. They insisted and I said a flat out no (and then my fiance backed me up). They told me that I had to take them and if I don’t want them to dispose of them.
Uh…. I wonder how legal drugs get on the street….. THAT”S NOT HELPING!
—Air of Frustration
This article appears in May 28 – Jun 3, 2009.
OP; you are an ungratefull whiner. Who gives a shit they were just covering their ass by giving you them just in case you felt pain later on. Not to mention saving you a trip. they tried…you are ungratefull. Take a hike!
You’d be complaining even more if you went home and started experiencing pain and no drugs to take, whether they worked or not.
I have a great deal of respect for doctors and people in medical professions. They toil through YEARS of schooling and work long hours in understaffed facilities to help ungrateful people like you. If it weren’t for them I’d be fucking blind. So fuck you.
I think they were just covering their asses. If they sent you home without it and it turned out that you actually needed it, then they’d get in shit. But if they send you home with it and you chuck it, it’s your fault.
I’m kinda with OP. Not necessarily for this particular situation, but prescription drug’s are being handed out waaay to easily. Not just for pain, all forms. Feel sad, here take this. Socially awkward, little adhd, don’t quite fit into what society views as the norm, there’s a drug for that too, drugs for everyone.
Meanwhile, teenagers, and some adults are getting seriously addicted to these drugs. If the doctor tells me to take it, hey it must be ok..right? WRONG!
Too many people are dying from abuse of these drugs, and it’s waay to easy to get these “legal” drugs, and it is only NOW that researchers are starting to look into some of the repercussions that some people are facing being prescribed drug’s too easily.
Dilaudid isn’t going to get you mainlining and screaming for more from taking just a couple of pills. I can see if you had a script for a bunch, then maybe. The doctors were just trying to make sure you’d have no problems after you left, because they don’t want you coming back if you don’t have to. If you don’t need the dilaudid, flush em. Problem solved.
Fizz, doctor’s should be respected but they make money just like anyone else.
Maybe it’s because I grew up in a place that if I went in with sore ears, I had a throat infection and was told too drink warm milk. O and my brother who had asthma, having an asthma attack, warm milk works for that too…
O..and don’t even get me into being refused treatment because I made a personal choice not to put my daughter on anti biotic for two year’s straight…and yes there are legit reason’s for that choice, however I don’t have time to point that all out now so I will just bring them up pending on the attacks I get for making this comment ha.
FA…are you saying you were refused necessary medical attention because you didn’t put your daughter on antibiotics? You might need to explain that one, because it doesn’t really make sense.
Also, with respect to your researchers comment…drugs are thoroughly tested for toxicity and side effects before they reach the market but he only way to determine the long term effects of a drug on an entire population is to collect data from an entire population over the long term.
Finally, one of the reasons that drugs are over prescribed is that they are over requested. Lots of people demand drugs for pain, or their kid’s ADHD or asthma. Drug companies tell people to “ask their doctor about ….” and they do. I’m not saying doctor’s are not contributing to the problem, but they only share the blame.
ok OP first let’s start off by saying that you don’t say “Thank you” only to be followed by a “but”. They did their job by making sure you we in no danger and giving you something for the pain. So what the pills did nothing for you, so don’t take them, just throw them away. Stop being so ungreatful. Complaining for the sake of complaining….terriable
Yeah. Screw you for being a total ingrate OP. Like fizz said, doctors and nurses spend years getting the training and education to help you out in your time of medical need. Then they have to deal with people like you. If you don’t want the drugs, take ’em home and flush em. Plain and simple. So shut it and deal with it.
I can see the mal-practice suit now. The doctor never gave me meds. The doctor saying he did. Maybe what they can do is to make patients sign for either getting or refusing meds. At least that way the doctor is covered.
“doctor’s should be respected but they make money just like anyone else.”
FA, I don’t understand what doctors making money has to do with this. Are you saying that they don’t have our best interests at heart and are only slaving away at med school to make money off of our misery? They make more money because they require expensive education, don’t you want our health care professionals to have the best education possible? I do. Not to mention they are in school longer than any other profession I can think of and are at risk of catching things from the people they treat. If anyone deserves a high paycheck, it’s doctors.
You admit that you may have a bias from visits to the doctor when you were a kid. Medicine has advanced so much in the past 20 years, don’t let that bias stop you from trusting doctors when it comes to your own kids health. I don’t understand how doctors refused to give you treatment if you were the one refusing to receive it.
I think you’re exaggerating the situations for which doctors prescribe medication. Feeling sad, socially awkward, and not fitting in to the norm are things one would see a psychiatrist about, not the ER or even a general practitioner.
I do think that some drugs need to be prescribed more carefully by doctors but I don’t think the people who get addicted to them continue to receive them from their doctor needlessly over a long period of time. The majority of the drugs being abused are trafficked and sold just like any other illegal drug, and the doctors are not the dealers. The bigger problem is that when these drugs are bought illegally, the user has no medical information from a trusted doctor about safe dosage amounts and potential risks.
If what the OP is saying is true, that the drug was ineffective when administered in the ER, then I’m kinda with the OP on this one. I don’t think we should take anything that’s not absolutely necessary and in the case of prescription drugs, that goes double. We talk about costs of health care rising, maybe if doctors didn’t push drugs onto patients that experience no benefit from the drug we’d see a little relief in the cost of outgoing meds at our hospitals (easy math isn’t it?) When you take a drug, especially pain meds, but you don’t actually need it is when addiction ensues. Don’t sell or give away your prescription meds and you won’t be contributing to the delinquency of an addict. If you research it a little, there are clinics and pharmacies out there that “recycle” drugs. Make an inquiry then make a donation, you’ll feel better.
Miles — I don’t want to dispute your overall comment, but I just like to mention that there have been a few cases where drugs were released to the public and have turned out to be toxic — advandia, for one, is a T2 diabetic medication: causes heart problems; same with zelnorm, a drug for IBS = heart problems. I think there was a drug out a few years ago for arthritis a few years back, I believe that ended up being toxic. Many other drugs end up causing problems after they’re released.
The vast majority of drugs are safe, but there *are* a few cases where they’re not.
Really sucks sometimes too because Zelnorm was a KICK ASS drug and was the only thing that made my digestive system work properly 🙁
PK, you are perfectly correct and fair to point out those exceptions. The drug approval system is not perfect, but it is pretty good. Some side effects will only be discovered after a drug is widely used for a long period of time. Testing a drug for years on a large population to identify rare and minor side effects is not practical when the drug is in the development stage.
Drugs can take hundreds of millions of dollars and about a decade to develop and test before they get to the market. Keeping a drug from the market until ALL possible side effects have been assessed increases the cost and delays access to life-saving treatments.
A balance needs to be struck between getting drugs to people quickly and cheaply and still having them meet stringent health, safety and efficacy standards. Naturally, some drugs will worm their way through the cracks in the system.
With all due respect, I disagree with some of the perspectives here. A few of you speak as though the pharmaceutical industry is something we can comfortably place our trust in, that they would never knowingly release a potentially harmful drug, and the medical profession would never act as their pushers.
Pharmaceutical companies are corporations, and their bottom line is profit for their shareholders. They routinely release drugs that have not been adequately tested, or rely on biased research when proclaiming their drugs safe. There have been countless cases of drugs being released despite their questionable safety. Drug research is primarily funded, either directly or indirectly by pharmaceutical companies, and research companies that want to keep getting funded often tell the pharms only what they want to hear. Drug companies often go to great lengths to suppress negative results. It may also surprise you to know that the majority of drug company expenditures are not for research, but for marketing(flashy adverts and promos) and administrative costs (paying the immense salaries of their executives), which is why the cost of drugs keeps rising exponentially.
As far as doctors go, the pharms often provide them with huge kickbacks and incentives to dole out their product. It’s not unheard of for MDs to receive cash or gifts, and many drug companies pay to fly docs and their families to ‘conferences’ in places like Palm Springs or Aruba. The instances of all kinds of drugs, be it cholesterol drugs or antibiotics, being over-prescribed are many and well documented.
This is not to say that the majority of doctors don’t do a fantastic job, or that they don’t generally have your best interests in mind. But even the most preliminary research into the subject of shady pharmaceutical companies, and our government and medical industry’s complicity in these underhanded dealings, is enough to make anyone take an extra moment to ponder the safety and necessity of the drugs they’re being prescribed.
Very true meOw. The drug companies spend more than twice on advertising of their drugs than they do in R&D. There have been many drugs that were released by the major Pharmas that were knowingly harmful, but those negative results were suppressed by the major Pharma lobby groups. Some examples are:
Eli Lilly: Zyprexa
Purdue Pharma: OxyContin
Merck: Vioxx
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals: Seroquel
In 2006 alone, there were 17,027 Product Liability lawsuits filed against the Pharmaceutical Industry in the US alone. The second most was the Manufacturing Industry with only 3236 lawsuits filed against it. That alone should be an eye opener.
Doctors don’t know what all these drugs will do to you. They makes their decisions based on information provided by the various drug companies. The majority of the drug companies are public and the bottom line (or agenda) is to make $$$$ selling their drugs. Just because the doctor prescribes something, it does not necessarily mean that it’s correct. Do a bit of research yourself on what these drugs do. That will help you make an informed decision on whether to take them or not.
There probably is a cure for a lot of diseases that we suffer from, but in the end, it is more profitable to treat people with medication than it is to cure people. Milk the public for everything they can. Why is it that Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens can offer $4 prescriptions but the “name brand” drugs cost much much more? The drug companies hide behind their patents as a way of overpricing their drugs, that’s why.
This argument sounds very American, touting American stats, “Pharma’s” and television advertising.
me0w, “With all due respect”???? Be a better bitch would ya?
I went into the ER with severe muscle spasms from a previous car crash. They gave me Oxycontin. For muscle spasms. And when I asked for something slightly milder, and less addictive they told me this was the best thing and to take it or leave it. Meanwhile, ppl I know with chronic pain have to BEG for Oxycontin or something that strength to manage their pain. Huh!?
A friend of mine (who is a nurse) was visiting her father in hospital after surgery. He had the hiccups, which apparently is common and she asked the doctor to give him something to relax him… they gave him Haldol, which is an antipsychotic drug. It got rid of the hiccups alright, he was a drooling mess for three days. Turns out the unit has a history of overmedicating an understaffed department.
Savage, you went to the hospital in need of Advil, Tylenol or a whoppin’ Robax and you’re surprised and now complaining they gave you something stronger that would surely solve the problem? Maybe YOU should have self-medicated reasonably since you all ready knew what was required… you could have saved tax payers some much needed money by tending to your own aches (sans fever) since you knew what was causing it.
Yes, kay, respect. That’s something that I give to fellow bitchers who have opinions that are intelligent or somewhat valid, but that I disagree with. You are not one of these people.
I’d like to know at what point I touted ANY statistics. I’d also like to know how you figure that Canadian pharmaceutical issues are so vastly different from the US. While there are some obvious differences in our laws and policies, our drugs are often still coming from American pharmaceutical companies, we are still advertised to by said companies, and we still get prescribed dangerous or unnecessary drugs.
Get back to me when you have a point to make.
Hey kay, the information is American based because that’s where the statistics come from. Do some research and let us know how many Product Liability lawsuits were filed in Canada. The population is more than 10x the Canadian one, hence a larger sample size.
Like meOw stated, the Canadian Pharmas are not vastly different from their American/British parents. The decisions to promote and advertise these drugs are done so at the corporate head office. The drugs found in Canada are no different than ones found south of the border.
The otc meds advertised on tv are the same in both countries. What you don’t realize is that the drug companies advertise to doctors via samples. And who gets those samples when they visit the doctor????
Show me a doctor that accepts expensive kickbacks from pharma companies and I’ll show you an American doctor. Indeed the US population is much bigger and, yes, we get a lot of our drugs from US manufacturers but the FDA is not a Canadian board. A couple of examples come to mind… straight Lysine is not approved by our board. You can get it in a multi-vitamin but you can’t by it straight-up here in Canada. I believe oral birth control can be purchased over the counter in the US but not here. I’m sure there are many more examples where Canadian pharma laws and the American’s do not jive at all but that’s all I got for now.
That’s easy kay. Show me a Canadian doctor that doesn’t have any samples from any of the drug companies in their offices. Why are they accepting these samples? What reason would they have for accepting these samples? They’re not pharmacists. This is a form of “sponsorship”, like the all expenses paid conferences that doctors attend. The Pharma industry doesn’t write the doctors a cheque or give them a commission as you seem to be under the impression.
Btw, we’re not talking about otc drugs. We’re talking about drugs that are being prescribed by doctors. All the drugs you mentioned are available in Canada, so your argument about the laws not jiving are irrelevant. All the drugs that I previously stated were frequently prescribed to patients in Canada and the USA.
Meow and Onlythetruth, I think I may have come off as a bit more pro-drug company than I really am and was only trying to be less anti-drug company than most people are. I think a lot of people fear “big pharma” and I don’t think that fear is always well placed. That said, let me clarify a few points.
First, Pharmaceutical companies, like all companies are indeed primarily interested in the bottom line. That does not necessarily make them evil (unless they are Monsanto). Just because the data the drug companies use to support their claims are biased, does not make the claims wrong or fraudulent. Most of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and the “peers” are scientists in non-affiliated, often academic research institutions. Companies are just selective about which papers they want to reference, but doctors and government regulators have access to ALL the peer-reviewed studies done on a particular drug.
The second point is that once a drug is on the market, many of them are investigated by the academic research community where there is no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical company. The data generated by these studies should be more reliable and free of corporate-leaning biases.
The other idea I want to comment on was the statement about it being more profitable to treat rather than cure disease. The heart of this statement is true, but it is often used to paint pharmaceutical companies in a negative light.
The reality is that cures often require decades of research and capital investments that most countries cannot afford. New drug treatments, or improvements on old drugs require less time and money to bring to market. That is why pharmaceutical companies generally only produce treatment and diagnostic-related products.
It is the job of the government, through funding the Research Universities and Government Labs, to find cures for diseases. The vast majority of research that contributes to our understanding of disease is conducted in these not-for-profit environments by researchers who very much want to find the cures for the ailments that plague our society. If you want to see more diseases cured, tell the government to stop cutting funding to it’s research institutes.
Finally, I think it’s important for people to understand as much as they can about where their drug comes from and why their doctor might be pushing a certain option. Overall though, I don’t think drug companies are trying to keep us sick or cut corners on their research. Their job is to make money and a drug recall is not in their best interest. They suffer from negative press like any other business.
Oh, and Meow, I think it’s more important to trust the government run regulatory bodies that approve drugs rather than the drug companies themselves. Overall, I think the system works, but there are certainly areas that could be improved to keep potentially harmful drugs out of the marketplace.
onlythetruth, you find straight lysine in Canada and I’ll eat my words. It may not be a prescription drug but the example stands to show there is a difference between US and Canadian boards.
one word: thalidomide
you can order it http://www.healthmart2000.com/item435.htm
it does come from the states but delivered in Canada. All I did was type in lysine and canada, this showed up.
Kay the company is in Alberta. I just scrolled down to see about the company. The pills are made in the states.
Certainly Thalidomide is one of the more devastating drug mistakes. Keep in mind though that standards have changed sine, and as a result of, the thalidomide fiasco.
Interestingly, the drug is being used to treat certain cancers now.
Happy eating kay. But make sure to remove both feet from your mouth before sitting to chow down on your own words.
Miles, you make good points. I wouldn’t necessarily say I was bashing the Pharma industry, just offering a different opinion on it in case people weren’t aware of what goes on. Perhaps patients need more education so they can make informed decisions on what drugs are being prescribed to them and why they’re being prescribed. Like you said, the system overall is working, but there have to be safeguards put into place to prevent any bias in prescribing medication to patients.
I’m sorry, Miles, but I’ve gotta disagree with you again.
As for Points 1 and 2: I would consider any company in the business of health that ignores the serious safety issues of their product in order to make a profit to be corrupt, and at least somewhat evil. Not only does the pharmaceutical industry aggressively market drugs that have little, if any, clinical benefit, they knowingly market drugs that can induce severe adverse reactions, permanent health damage and even death. Drug researchers that ignore negative results in order to garner the desired positive final outcome are, at least in my mind, both wrong and fraudulent. The ‘unbiased peers’ you speak of, even if they’re from an academic institution with no corporate influence (rare), are often subject to attempts by big pharma to suppress or discredit them. These drug corporations have immense monetary and governmental influence, and a quick look into their practices shows they’re not afraid to use it.
For example, emails that surfaced as result of a court case involving the drug company Merck and the drug Vioxx displayed a hit list of medical professionals who were critical of the company or the drug. Next to the names of these individuals were the words ‘neutralize’ or ‘discredit’. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said one email, from a Merck employee. Staff were also alleged to have used other tactics, such as trying to interfere with academic appointments, and dropping hints about how funding to institutions might dry up.
In reference to your final comments, Miles, it’s true that the bad press of a drug recall isn’t in a company’s best interest, but in the grand scheme of things, their ‘suffering’ is minimal. When they get taken to task for illegal practices or faulty products, they almost always can afford to settle out of court and sweep it under the rug. Some of the biggest pharmas out there have endured massive scandals over the harm caused by their drugs, and they’re still going strong. They pay a few million dollars, fire some executives, and then it’s business as usual.
To be blunt, anyone who believes that drug corporations, or even our government health officials, have our best interests in mind is terribly naive. Pharmaceutical corporations have been operating relatively unchecked for far too long. Prescription drugs cause hundreds of thousands, even millions, of severe adverse reactions and deaths annually, and that’s not taking into account drug abuse and intentional or accidental overdoses. These companies have incredible lobbying power, and plenty of dough with which to grease political palms. Not to mention the fact that those in charge of upholding the policies of our Food and Drug Act have routinely ignored blatant risks to public health by approving questionable drugs, as well as innumerable toxins for use in our everyday products.
I could go on ranting and citing examples, but I’ll spare you all 🙂 Instead I encourage anyone interested to do their own research, and you’ll see what I mean.
First off, my apologies for making that comment and then not backing it up for so long.
Secondly, I am in no way trying to discredit doctors and their education. I’m just saying, that just as you would for the gov’t, religion…any form of “authority”, it is better not to blindly follow what these people are saying and if you have question’s don’t feel bad for asking. As well, second opinions aren’t a bad thing, nor is research on your own terms.
As for my daughter being refused treatment, I must apologize for that comment because I think I may have put that down wrong( I was in a bit of a rush but just had the urge to comment on this topic..sorry). As short a background as possible:
My daughter has grade two urinary reflux, a condition that IF she got a bladder infection could lead to kidney scaring. She would most likely outgrow this condition by the time she was 4 or 5, but as a precautionary measure, the doctor wanted to prescribe her antibiotics to take until she reached this age. I really want to avoid writing a book on this so let’s just say for a long list of reasons, and even giving them to her for the first little while, which led to some other negative effects, I said no, I’m not doing it.
This was an educated decision on something that speaking with other doctors is controversial to begin with.
As a result of this decision the specialist refused to see my daughter anymore, and refused her the yearly test’s to monitor this condition, saying that there was no point because I wasn’t giving her the antibiotics. This will not be the end of this, but I will leave the story for now. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not one of those people who are all anti drugs, drugs are bad, but this to me is an example of one drug that is getting over prescribed without taking into account of the negative repercussions of doing so.
Miles, the research I was referring to, which I was listening to on CBC radio, and have NO idea where to find it, wasn’t referring to a conspiracy on drug’s being dangerous and doctors killing us off slowly by giving them to us. It was research being put forth on drawing on more accurate statistics on how many people are dying because of the abuse of drugs that are being prescribed by doctors…. So more along the lines that some of these drugs shouldn’t be handed out so easily, and perhaps should be more closely monitored. However, referring to the comment you made, what about the new HPV vaccination. We have no idea what it is going to be doing to us ten years down the road because it hasn’t been tested that far down the road.
Miles, I do agree with your comment about drugs being over requested, but that is where I tend to think that maybe doctors should be educating patients on other options before just handing them the prescriptions.
“Pharmaceutical companies are corporations, and their bottom line is profit for their shareholders” QFT
“As far as doctors go, the pharms often provide them with huge kickbacks and incentives to dole out their product.” Also QFT
Savage also provided a good example to my argument
*sigh* that was way to much typing for me ha, and I probably missed a couple of points. I just thought that even though the OP gave a ridiculous example, it was a good argument to bring up.
long story short, I’m basically with meow
O, and onlythetruth too:)
So, it appears that a few of us have a lot to say on this matter 🙂
Meow, once again, I don’t take particular exception to most of what you said, however I don’t agree with the assertion that thinking our health officials have our best interests at heart makes a person naive. Thinking that of corporations I will grant you 🙂
In response to your comments, I think there are a few things I would bring up in the interest of fairness.
First, a word on peer review, which may be of use to those how like to do their own research. The most reputable and reliable data is going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal with a higher impact factor generally being associated with higher significance and more rigorous review process. When someone (corporate or academic) wants to publish their findings, they send their data to the journal’s editor who distributes it to 2-3 reviewers who the submitter is unaware of who they are. These reviewers, who are experts in their related field, critique the data for flaws in experimental design or faulty conclusions. Only when the reviewers give the go-ahead does the data get published. (Check PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ to research peer-reviewed studies on your favorite drug). Journal Impact factors can be found here: http://abhayjere.com/impactfactor.aspx
The peer review process is rigorous and designed to ensure fairness and that only high-quality and reputable data is published. I would be weary of any reports about a drug (good or bad) that has not undergone peer-review. Contrary to your assertion Meow, the majority of these “peers” are NOT under the influence of corporate interests.
I only make such a fuss about this point because I think the vast majority of people (not implying those of you here) have no idea about how the scientific process works. There are lots of “studies” on the internet that say a lot of things, but the most reliable source of data is that found in peer-reviewed literature. Personally, I think the peer-review process should be applied to government policy making too..but that’s another rant.
Another point, in the interest of perspective, ALL drugs have side effects and might be contraindicated for certain population groups. It is impossible to identify all of these side effects in the testing phase. Very few new drugs result in the types of adverse side effects seen in recent recalls (Vioxx) BECAUSE the current testing and approval process works. The best way to keep unsafe drugs out of the pharmacy is to strengthen the approval process from the government side and increase the oversight on this process if necessary.
However, I agree that drug companies are promoting a drug culture where there’s a pill for everything whether you need it or not and I find this emerging trend deplorable.
FA. Thanks for the clarification.
With respect to the HPV vaccine: How are we supposed to assess the long term effects of a drug in a human population without testing it? Would you recommend testing it on a smaller population for 10 years first? If so, you have to weigh the pro’s of that long term study with the con’s of how many women DIE of HPV related cancers each year. Vaccines are a well-established anti-viral strategy. If short term studies show no adverse side effects, I think it is appropriate to put the drug to market and monitor it’s effectiveness there.
And, for the record, I’m not trying to defend drug companies. I am trying to defend the benefits of drugs, western medicine and the scientific and discovery process. The number of lives saved and lifespans extended by medical research far exceeds those who have suffered or died in spite of it.
Miles, In hopes that I am not making assumptions? I think I agree with your perspective of making balanced decisions. My main thought on the matter is that when someone goes in to see a doctor I think that if they decide to question the doctor’s logic they are looked down on. In that sense, I feel like many people might not feel it is their right to do so and also why I think that Meow and truth present an extremely valid argument. I do however agree that there are probably tons of falsified information on medical conditions and the drugs. As such, if you are going to do research, Peer Reviews and Academic Journals are probably the best route. If not those, then area’s such as the credentials of the person giving the information, as well as any reason’s the research may have a bias opinion must be taken into consideration.
“With respect to the HPV vaccine: How are we supposed to assess the long term effects of a drug in a human population without testing it?” I don’t think there is a way (I just won’t be one of the people using it:)). However, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like some of the negative side effects of these drug’s get swept under the carpet a little too easily. IMO I think that more knowledge should be given by doctor’s before administering the drug or vaccination, perhaps even stating that this is a new drug and in some cases it can take up to a decade of seeing it’s full effects; however, if that happened, more people would be deciding to opt out of taking it Then the possibility arises that it would be harder to distribute raising the question that perhaps this could result in less funding to continue research on the drug and it would have to stop being distributed? No demand, no supply? These are just assumptions though.
Lastly, I feel like something like vaccinations are getting abused. Take the new vaccination for chicken pox (of course you would have no idea that is what it was for by the name of it). As a new vaccine, is it worth giving it to your child over something like chicken pox? If you go into the doctor with your child for their 1 year booster shot’s, is the doctor going to specifically tell you that THAT perticular vaccination is for something as silly as chicken pox(I got shingles I’m still here). No they are just going to administer it with all of the other shot’s they are getting during that appointment. That is unless YOU as the parent ask about it and what it is for. Or at least take the intuitive to read the really boring pamphlets that paint a positive review on the vaccinations they are informing you about. The same pamphlets that are given to you when you go in for your child’s first doctor’s appointment when they are only a week or two old which is also the time when you are overwhelmed with all of the new parent fears you are going through and probably not thinking about the booster shot’s she is going to get a year or two from then.
Miles, you and a few select others are the reason I keep coming back here. I find it enjoyable to debate issues with people that have well-reasoned, intelligent perspectives, as it allow me gain fresh insight and further develop my opinions. So thanks for that 🙂
I admittedly don’t know as much about the peer-review process as you seem to, but I get what you’re saying. I guess my issue is that for the average person, or even most MDs, it’s impractical to wade through countless medical journals to find out if drugs are safe or not. And it seems that despite these independent reviews, dangerous drugs are still reaching the public, and we all the none the wiser until it’s often too late. I also realize that it’s impossible to be aware of all side effects at the time of a drug’s approval, but there have been way too many cases of drug companies being aware of dangerous side effects in the testing phase, and releasing them anyway, for me to be comfortable.
“With respect to the HPV vaccine: How are we supposed to assess the long term effects of a drug in a human population without testing it?” Again, I see your point. However, in the case of Gardasil, made by our dear friends at Merck btw, it’s been fast-tracked for implementation in schools, which I consider highly irresponsible. There have already been countless cases of severe adverse reactions and several deaths as a result of this vaccine. The fact that our government and schools are pushing this on our young women, girls as young as 11, is absolutely terrifying. The province of Ontario alone will spend $117 million on HPV vaccination over three years, and the vaccine carries no guarantees of effectiveness. Cervical cancer only accounts for 1% of cancer deaths per year, and HPV is not even linked to many of those cases. Additionally, there is no absolute link between HPV and cervical cancer, as there are numerous other factors in play. I could go on, but my point is we just don’t know enough about Gardasil to be mandating it for anyone, much less girls just entering puberty. The fact that this brand new drug was so quickly implemented by our government gives me serious pause for thought as well. Gardasil is Merck’s first big drug development since the Vioxx scandal. They obviously want it to succeed and have lobbied hard for its implementation. I for one, am appalled our government is going along with this little ‘experiment.’
HAHAHA me an meow both took the same quote 🙂
Hehe….Honestly, FA, I feel like you, Miles, and I could go back and forth with this endlessly – it’s such a broad and complex issue. I love the fact that we’re all driven to write essay-like responses each time. You guys are awesome, it’s a pleasure debating with you 🙂
same back at you! I love a healthy debate, and I love how you present your opinion’s on the matter.
And miles, regarding the comment about not getting laid made not to long ago lol, I don’t know how you wouldn’t. You seem like an extremely respectable and awesome person. You should have girl’s lining up for you:)
*sniff* I love you guy’s man! lol..anyhow
Yeah, there really are a lot of facets to this issue and we really could go on forever about it. It is also discussions like this that keep me coming back to LTWWB as well, and I am glad when folks like you (meow and FA) disagree with me because you really do challenge my thoughts and conclusions on an issue.
My final thought on this issue (for now) is probably this:
I don’t really trust drug companies either…but I don’t think that means I can’t trust their drugs. Most of the medications on the market today are tried and tested and do what they are supposed to do without putting the population at undue risk. I would look very closely at the research supporting any new drug before I agreed to take it though.
I agree with your final thoughts Miles
Freebies! You’re tax dollars pay for that stuff.