Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Offlinestefan
work in progress


Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 8,932
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 9 months, 12 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7553898 - 10/24/07 09:03 AM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

After reading through a few of the threads in this section I must say I am thoroughly pissed off. As a pharmacology student I am at a loss for how so many people have come to the conclusion that doctors don't know shit, that anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and ADD medications are dangerous and worthless, that any ol' herb is beneficial, and that exercise and proper diet fix everything. Before making such claims I suggest reading a few studies and educating yourself on the subject of neuropharmacology.




:thumbup:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554697 - 10/24/07 02:05 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:





I am trying to convey my astonishment at your lack of cognition upon this without flaming you.... but nothing comes to mind that truly relates how much contempt I have for your myopic dawdling.

I dont know how to get you to understand this. I have tried analogy, I have tried a flow chart.
maybe we need to find some common ground and work from there.

1) do you agree that it is very difficult to get FDA approval for a drug?
2) Do you agree that some drugs, if not all, have more than one effect when consumed? be that effect good or bad.
3) do you agree that for a drug to get FDA approval it has to show efficacy in it proposed use or uses?
4) do you agree that it doesnt financially make sense for a pharmaceutical company to try and get FDA approval for every possible use of their drug?
5) do you agree that once a drug gets FDA approval for atleast one use, it can then be prescribed for anything?
6) do you agree that pharmaceutical reps give financial/gift incentives to doctors in hopes that they will prescribe their drug off label?
7) do you agree that doctors do in fact prescribe drugs for off label use?





You're seriously like talking to a wall, you don't seem to realize, STILL, that you're rebuttal stated above, was a complete shift of topics because you didn't even understand the context of the reply. It's almost sad actually.

Quote:

now, if you agree to all of these things, I dont see why it is so hard to connect the dots to come to the conclusion that off label use is in fact a loophole for the pharmaceutical companies to bypass the oversight and regulation of the FDA.
If you dont agree with all of these... then I will gladly give you multiple sources that will prove it.




Once again, you're seriously not even reading my ORIGINAL reply, are you?

When did i deny off-label use in FDA approval? Where? Are you seriously just making up arguements for the sake of arguing?

What I said, in response to you saying, that FDA approval is a big issue with off-label, is that It's not the original purpose FOR off-label use.


now, the question is simple. When I replied
Quote:

"You were complaining that drugs are being used for "off label" purposes without the intent if telling the patient the drugs "original means of legalization"

I was saying how it's because alot of a drug's initial mechanisms end up not even being the more significant role of the drug.

This has nothing to do with the push of legalizing a drug with one explanation over the other."




you somehow saw the word "push" and thought I was talking about pill pushing on doctors. Your DIRECT REPLY to this quote was:

Quote:


really? so doctors dont get financial incentives to push certain drugs? maybe you want to look into that before you taste your shoe.




uhhh..so where did I ever DENY that pill-pushing doesn't exsist? Go look around...I'll wait. I said "pill pushing has nothing to do with it", "it" being the use of Off-label definitions as a way for drug companies to get FDA approval.

so read through that again. You went from...talking about how off-label use is a way to get FDA approval, then you heard the word "push" and thought "pill pushing"

and how the hell does doctor's getting financial incentives have anything to do DIRECTLY with a drug getting FDA approval? You seriously don't get how you jumped from one topic to another?

Do you realize, we weren't even talking about pill pushing untill you somehow magically came up with the connection of FDA approval somehow being directly related to a drug being pushed on doctors through financial incentives.

It was a clear misreading on your part, if you don't realize this, go up and look at the quote you were originally replying to.



Quote:

Quote:

Big Pharma pays for thousands of speeches by doctors each year because companies can not legally promote off-label uses. So in other words, the law allows drug makers to hire doctors to do the dirty work that would be illegal for the company itself. In 2004, doctors spoke at 237,000 meetings sponsored by drug companies, up from 66,000 in 1999, according to the July 15, 2005, Wall Street Journal.




lets take seroquel for example. Oddly enough it is an atypical antipsychotic (where have I heard that phrase before..... atypical antipsychotic.... I know I heard that somewhere before..... oh, probably in that long paper I quoted to you that you didnt even read).
which was first approved for treating schitzophrenia. In 2006, a study found that almost half of its sales came from off label use.







It's funny that you always have to revert to talking about anti-psychotics, if you're opposing off-label drug use JUST because of the use of anti-psychotics, it's clear that you REALLY DONT KNOW MUCH about the WHOLE SCOPE of pharmaceutical research and use.


Quote:

from wiki..





I rest my case...


Quote:

Quote:

Quetiapine is controversially marketed to parents of moody and irritable teenagers in magazines such as Parade and TV Guide.[2][3] It is sometimes used off-label, often as an augmentation agent, to treat such conditions as obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, restless legs syndrome, autism, alcoholism, Tourette syndrome,[4] and has been used by physicians as a sedative for those with sleep disorders or anxiety disorders.




now, why do I have a problem with this? because even when studies show that the drug is basically useless, or at best, no more effective at treating its primary condition.... it doesnt matter, because it got approval, and it is now free to be pushed by lobbied doctors to subject the population to being generally sedated in hopes that you will be drugged enough to not be bothered by your condition.





I'll say it again, you clearly have a very small grasp on pharmacueticals as a whole. You don't seem to realize just how many vital drugs, used on a daily basis, in intensive care, emergency care, and in situations of coding, that a drug is used for it's off-label function.

ANd if you seriously oppose off-label use AS A WHOLE, just because of a what a few anti-psychoctics you found on wikipedia talk about, then you really just don't know much about pharmaceuticals, it's that simple.

Quote:

for example..
Quote:

In 2005, quetiapine and other "atypical antipsychotics" were shown by the New England Journal of Medicine to be no more effective than perphenazine (Trilifon®), a typical antipsychotic, for the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the subsequent CATIE trial, funded by AstraZeneca and other major pharmaceutical manufacturers,[5] contradicted the 2005 study in certain instances.

A 2005 British Medical Journal report showed that quetiapine was ineffective in reducing agitation among Alzheimer’s patients, whose consumption of the drug then constituted 29% of sales; in fact, quetiapine was found to make cognitive functioning worse in elderly patients with dementia.[6]

The National Institutes of Health recommends against the use of quetiapine and almost all other psychotropic medications (including all atypicals, most anti-depressants, and all benzodiazepines) by children or those under 18,[7] observing that teenagers taking quetiapine "may be more likely to think about harming or killing themselves or to plan or try to do so."[8]




and an even further slap in the face is that, even when a respected medical organization such as the NIH says it isnt ethical to prescribe it to people under 18, you see something like this
Quote:

Quetiapine is controversially marketed to parents of moody and irritable teenagers in magazines such as Parade and TV Guide




and then we basically have groups of "lesser" people who are subjected to unknowingly being lab rats.... like people on medicare and in prisons.
Quote:

Drugs like Seroquel are often prescribed off-label in prisons and in homes for the elderly. Mental health expert Dr. Terry Kupers, a California psychiatrist, said that drugs are often prescribed in these situations "to quiet people down. ... They're over-prescribed for people who are not psychotic but who are not sleeping or who are causing disruptions in the prisons," he said.

Vermont Department of Corrections records obtained through a freedom of information request by the AP reveal that at one prison Seroquel was prescribed for more than 20 percent of inmates, even though fewer inmates were categorized as "seriously mentally ill." At another state prison, nearly 1/3 of its inmates were taking Seroquel. $1.76 million was spent by the state on drugs for prisoners last year






have I connected enough dots for you? do you get it now?

wait, let me give you one more example.

Quote:

Gabapentin has also been used in the treatment of bipolar disorder. However, its off-label use for this purpose is increasingly controversial.[6] Some claim gabapentin acts as a mood stabilizer and has the advantage of having fewer side-effects than more conventional bipolar drugs such as lithium and valproic acid. Some small, non-controlled studies in the 1990s, most sponsored by gabapentin's manufacturer, suggested that gabapentin treatment for bipolar disorder may be promising.[6] However, more recently, several larger, controlled, and double-blind studies have found that gabapentin was no more effective than (and in one study, slightly less effective than) placebo.[7] Despite this scientific evidence that gabapentin in the treatment of bipolar disorder is not an optimal treatment, many psychiatrists continue to prescribe it for this purpose.




better known as neurontin, it was approved "...as an adjunctive medication to control partial seizures".

so get this.... it got FDA approval as an adjunctive. For those watching at home.
adjunctive:1: something joined or added to another thing but not essentially a part of it

it got past the FDA by humpacking on other drugs. one study found that 90% of Neurontins sales were from off label use... and later GET THIS!!! THEY GOT SUED AND HAD TO PAY 430 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OF ILLEGALLY MARKETING IT!!!

So... I was going to address your other post, but I felt it nececssary that we clear this "hu! mah! I cant shwiusuitiubfiusiuuusss ear you" you are kkkshhkshkhsk breaking up" crap up.








It's sad because you so readily dismiss what i had originally posted, i bet you didn't even look at any of the drugs i suggested you look up?

what's wrong? can't explore your opposition's stance?

Do you even know about any of the off-label drugs being used for various heart conditions? Do you know about off-label drugs being used for their basic sympathomimetric functions?

Do you even know about the hundreds of autonomically modulating drugs, which make up the core of muscarinic treatment?

Bottom line is, you're only fuel for rebuttal is the use of antipsychotic drugs, which is nothing but a small blip on the world of pharmaceuticals as a whole.

And if you seriously can only look at antipsychotic drug use as a reason to ban ALL Off-label use, then again I say, you probably just don't understand how universal off-label drug use IS in medicine.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Edited by LiquidSmoke (10/24/07 04:29 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554819 - 10/24/07 02:40 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

It's sad because you're so busy finding an oppurtunity to post big papers you found on google, and you don't even ADDRESS my ORIGINAL rebuttal.


Let's start from the beginning.

You said, that off-label use shouldn't be allowed because it's a means to which companies get passed FDA approval.

So I said, that off-label use was designed to find additional use in potentially multi-functional drugs. And that many drugs being used off-label are for pretty significant purposes beyond the drug's initial use.


So then you said, OMG you don't believe drug companies use off-label use to get past FDA approval? Here's a bunch of sources siting it.





...do you see where you stopped listening and just typed away?



since you incessantly repost your initial point rather than formulating a REAL rebuttal to my initial statement, i'll make it more simple for you by putting it in question form:

Do you believe that drugs with multiple uses, should only be used for their originally FDA approved purpose?

Since that's basically what you do when you ban ALL off-label drug use?


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554938 - 10/24/07 03:11 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

I understand the concept behind off label use. Doctors shouldnt have to wait for the months/years of proper testing to be done to use a drug outside of its intended purpose... but there needs to be some sort of regulation. right now, all we have are "tsk tsk" and strong reprimanding.







Quote:

didnt I just get done telling you that I am against the system in which it is carried out and allowed?




Yeah you did, in the SAME POST.  Oh i'm sorry, i can't read your post while you're in the process of typing it.  :rolleyes:

Quote:


so you acknowledge that pill pushing is a problem, yet you dont see how it has anything to do with off label use?
I think you have spent too much time trying to back yourself out of a corner by debating semantics, and too little time being on topic.




Did you already forget HOW you brought up the issue of pill pushing?  Of course it has to do with off-label use.  But it doesn't have anything to do with how off-label definition of drugs are used to get FDA approval. 

Pill pushing on doctors -> FDA approval

Pill pushing on doctors -> FDA approval.

Go back to the initial statement i made, you went from point A to point C without even trying to explain how you even brought up the issue of pill pushing in relation to FDA approval.

Just because both issues fall under the category of "off-label drug use" doesn't mean Pill pushing directly effects FDA approval, which is why you were going off-topic to begin with.

You initially brought up Off-label drug use as a reason why FDA approval becomes easier for drug companies to recieve.  Then you somehow made a correlation between my rebuttal of saying how FDA passing of drug use is not even the main importance behind off-label drug use, to talking about whether or not pill pushing exists.


Quote:

and yes, I am saying that about every single drug... no matter what it is, it will have side effects, and when you change the target consumers, you will find new side effects.




Goes to show how much you really DO study pharmacology...

So using aldosterone synthesis antagonists on heart failure patients will have a A NEW array of side effects on patients with acute renal failure?

So using nitrous oxide on hypertensive patients will have NEW SIDE EFFECTS than when being used on ischemic patients????  Do you even understand the mechanism behind some of the most BASIC drugs?



Quote:

Im willing to bet the "good news" travels a lot faster than the "but...." news.
How do you think doctors find out about this off label use? either they make their patients guinea pigs, or they are told by another doctor who was paid to give a lecture by a pharmaceutical company.




It's clear from this statement, that you really don't even follow medical research at all.  Do you even know about broad-mechanism synthesis or the overlapping functions of various hormones and hormone modifiers?  Have you ever even taken a human physiology course?


Quote:

think about this. outside of "coincidence", there is no possible avenue in which "discovering" the benefits of a psychopharmaceutical drug in off label use can come about in an ethical way.
At one point, someone took a complete shot in the dark and said "hey maybe if I gave you this drug, you would be too sedated to be depressed".




Really.

So drugs are never used on test groups of volluntary patients?  I guess those types of studies never occur.  It's all "coincidence" and "shots in the dark"...

hey let's give this patient a drug that has nothing to do with his condition and see what happens....  you seriously think that's how multiple uses of drugs are discovered?


Seriously man, go and study some neuro-pharm or something.  Or atleast follow medical research on a consistent basis before you just assume that random drug prescriptions is the primary means of off-label drug use discovery.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Edited by LiquidSmoke (10/24/07 04:10 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7555328 - 10/24/07 04:55 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I am at a loss for how so many people have come to the conclusion that doctors don't know shit, that anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and ADD medications are dangerous and worthless, that any ol' herb is beneficial, and that exercise and proper diet fix everything.




Wow. Four strawman arguments in one sentence!

*calls Guinness book*


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7555696 - 10/24/07 06:15 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:





I am trying to convey my astonishment at your lack of cognition upon this without flaming you.... but nothing comes to mind that truly relates how much contempt I have for your myopic dawdling.

I dont know how to get you to understand this. I have tried analogy, I have tried a flow chart.
maybe we need to find some common ground and work from there.

1) do you agree that it is very difficult to get FDA approval for a drug?
2) Do you agree that some drugs, if not all, have more than one effect when consumed? be that effect good or bad.
3) do you agree that for a drug to get FDA approval it has to show efficacy in it proposed use or uses?
4) do you agree that it doesnt financially make sense for a pharmaceutical company to try and get FDA approval for every possible use of their drug?
5) do you agree that once a drug gets FDA approval for atleast one use, it can then be prescribed for anything?
6) do you agree that pharmaceutical reps give financial/gift incentives to doctors in hopes that they will prescribe their drug off label?
7) do you agree that doctors do in fact prescribe drugs for off label use?





You're seriously like talking to a wall, you don't seem to realize, STILL, that you're rebuttal stated above, was a complete shift of topics because you didn't even understand the context of the reply. It's almost sad actually.




what is sad is that you are still trying to cop out by saying I was off topic, when I obviously wasnt. I see later on that your entire argument has come down to the semantics between "In" and "For".

let me show you.

Quote:


What I said, in response to you saying, that FDA approval is a big issue with off-label, is that It's not the original purpose FOR off-label use.



Yes, i understand that the original purpose FOR off label use was so doctors could use any drugs at their discretion..... yeah, I get that. I have stated that atleast 2 other times in this thread. Im not really sure how you have made that into your thesis in this discussion... but ok. Maybe the confusion is coming from your misunderstanding of the entire system, which is evident in sentences like this...
Quote:

off-label use drugs are designed, in fact that entire policy was made, for purposes of medical research, seeing if certain drugs have other interactional benefits.



here, you either believe that drugs are randomly created and just tested until they find something that they fix, or you are agreeing with me about how these companies try to sneak drugs past the FDA on the easiest use to prove efficacy.

See, what happened was that you quoted and responded to only a small portion of my entire initial post in this thread. let me show you, because in that post, I basically show you my entire argument. Ok, I didnt understand that you wanted to take one word of one line out of context and claim that i have misinterpreted the whole thing... I was under the assumption that you had read my entire post. silly me.
here is the latter part of my quote that you cut out, which ties it all in.
Quote:

The FDA admits that it lacks the authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Accordingly, the agency does not purport to control the practice of off-label prescribing by physicians


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


http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/bioethics/offlabel_11/

although there have been many lawsuits involving every major pharmaceutical corporation regarding advertising off-label use to doctors, I dont think any have won.

Off-label promotion undercuts the FDA's ability to ensure safety and efficacy.
Off-label promotion removes incentives for manufacturers to conduct studies on safety and efficacy.
Off-label promotion encourages manufacturers to seek FDA approval only for the narrowest, most-easy-to-support indications.




so, I dont see how anything that I have said so far could be considered off topic, when this was posted 30 posts back, and you quoted the paragraph leading up to this one.
Im sorry that I didnt catch on to the liquid smoke rules of quoting out of context to argue semantics.



Quote:

now, the question is simple. When I replied
Quote:

"You were complaining that drugs are being used for "off label" purposes without the intent if telling the patient the drugs "original means of legalization"

I was saying how it's because alot of a drug's initial mechanisms end up not even being the more significant role of the drug.

This has nothing to do with the push of legalizing a drug with one explanation over the other."




you somehow saw the word "push" and thought I was talking about pill pushing on doctors. Your DIRECT REPLY to this quote was:

Quote:


really? so doctors dont get financial incentives to push certain drugs? maybe you want to look into that before you taste your shoe.




uhhh..so where did I ever DENY that pill-pushing doesn't exsist? Go look around...I'll wait. I said "pill pushing has nothing to do with it", "it" being the use of Off-label definitions as a way for drug companies to get FDA approval.

so read through that again. You went from...talking about how off-label use is a way to get FDA approval, then you heard the word "push" and thought "pill pushing"

and how the hell does doctor's getting financial incentives have anything to do DIRECTLY with a drug getting FDA approval? You seriously don't get how you jumped from one topic to another?



1) again, you want to argue semantics in regards to the phrases "push to legalize" and then go even further to put words or thoughts into my mouth. i completely understood what you meant... granted, I didnt think I was talking to a person as inept at debate as you, and figured that it was common sense to read an entire quote before quoting it out of context.
2) how the hell does doctor's getting financial incentives have anything to do DIRECTLY with a drug getting FDA approval? well, if off label use wasnt legal, then the corporations would have to get FDA approval for every intended use of their drug... as it stands right now, the companies can rely on bribing doctors to use their drugs off label.
And yes, Im sure that a good percent of off label use is with good intentions. Im sure that most of the off label use is beneficial... but right now, there are no real rules, and the system is being heavily abused.

Quote:

Do you realize, we weren't even talking about pill pushing untill you somehow magically came up with the connection of FDA approval somehow being directly related to a drug being pushed on doctors through financial incentives.

It was a clear misreading on your part, if you don't realize this, go up and look at the quote you were originally replying to.



i am hoping I made my point clear, but I have to reiterate it here. You were the one that misread, or quoted out of context. The entire point of the paragraphs under the heading 6) were an entire point regarding off label use.



Quote:

It's funny that you always have to revert to talking about anti-psychotics, if you're opposing off-label drug use JUST because of the use of anti-psychotics, it's clear that you REALLY DONT KNOW MUCH about the WHOLE SCOPE of pharmaceutical research and use.



and you seem to think that the system right now isnt being abused, and that using bayer to prevent heart attacks is justification for killing elderly people and putting 5 year olds on amphetamines and antipsychotics.
That is my whole point on this matter, and that is what our actual debate is about before it became screwed up in your quoting out of context.


Quote:

Quote:

from wiki..





I rest my case...



show me one quote that I have given from wiki that was innacurate.


Quote:


Bottom line is, you're only fuel for rebuttal is the use of antipsychotic drugs, which is nothing but a small blip on the world of pharmaceuticals as a whole.

And if you seriously can only look at antipsychotic drug use as a reason to ban ALL Off-label use, then again I say, you probably just don't understand how universal off-label drug use IS in medicine.



Neurontin was in the top 50 most prescribed drugs at one point. that is just one drug.
If anything sinks in.... I want this next quote to. because it is the coup de grace.
See, you are trying to downplay the entire market of psychopharmaceuticals as being "just a blip". well, how do I then find things like this?
Quote:

In its study, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 2.4 billion drugs prescribed in visits to doctors and hospitals in 2005. Of those, 118 million were for antidepressants.

High blood pressure drugs were the next most-common with 113 million prescriptions.





and if you look at any statistic, you will see that sales of sntidepressants and such have constantly grown.

See, if I was going into cardiac arrest or some equally life threatening situation, sure, I would hope that the doctor uses the best possible course of treatment, regardless of what the FDA has signed off on.
No one is saying that there arent those situations where a doctor needs to have all drugs in his arsenal... but there are better ways of going about it.
Many drugs eventually get FDA approval for other uses. But there has to be a compromise.... would it be so hard to allow off label use only for life or death situations? maybe not, we can discuss the pros and cons of that.... just a suggestion... one avenue for compromise on this subject.
Maybe we can prohibit general practitioners from prescribing off label. I would love to see psychiatrists unable to prescribe off label.... why do they need to anyway?
Which is it? are the off label uses we have right now really that superior to the drugs we have for their intended uses? I dont see why there is such a scramble to have the newest off label use implemented instantly when there are 4 and 5 other drugs that were designed, and have been working fine through their intended use, to treat that specific condition.
sure, maybe it would take a little reworking, a little rewording, of the FDA guidelines, maybe even create an "alternative uses" advisory panel that can streamline the red tape required for the FDA to approve a drug for an alternate use.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555752 - 10/24/07 06:28 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Really.

So drugs are never used on test groups of volluntary patients? I guess those types of studies never occur. It's all "coincidence" and "shots in the dark"...




yeah, but how do they even find the alternative use in the first place? at some point, there either had to be a coincidence of a patient with a double condition that were both treated by the same drug and they find otu that way.... or someone did take a shot in the dark in an unethical fashion.
There has to be some impetus of the discovery. I dont know, maybe I am that clueless about pharmacology... maybe they do just get a bunch of volunteers with a rainbow of conditions and they just hand the drug out and ask "what areas have you experienced progress"?
IMO, that is still unethical.
but do you get what I am saying? at some point, there had to be atleast one unethical doctor or study that was a complete shot in the dark... otherwise, the use would have be previously known from the initial studies for FDA approval.
You dont think that some chemist comes in and says "I have made a new drug! rally the chimps and lets see what it does!".
Im sure behind every drug, there is an exhausting review with a plethora of scientists trying to find every possible beneficial property of the drug... if after animal and human testing, these "alternative uses" go unnoticed, then there is only two ways that the new use can be found: coincidence, or unethically.
Otherwise, my entire point regarding passing drugs on the narrowest of uses is supported... because I cant imagine that many beneficial uses of drugs go unnoticed in the phases of testing.... but what can go "unnoticed" is the safety and efficacy testing that is needed to ensure that the alternative use is truly safe and effective for peripheral uses.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555845 - 10/24/07 06:44 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

1) again, you want to argue semantics in regards to the phrases "push to legalize" and then go even further to put words or thoughts into my mouth. i completely understood what you meant... granted, I didnt think I was talking to a person as inept at debate as you, and figured that it was common sense to read an entire quote before quoting it out of context.




awww, resorting to insults because you were caught MISREADING a post while you were too eager to reply to it? You're still missing the issue of YOU misreading what I originally p osted, despite me repeating it HOW MANY times now?

Let's see, with this next quote of yours


Quote:

2) how the hell does doctor's getting financial incentives have anything to do DIRECTLY with a drug getting FDA approval? well, if off label use wasnt legal, then the corporations would have to get FDA approval for every intended use of their drug... as it stands right now, the companies can rely on bribing doctors to use their drugs off label.
And yes, Im sure that a good percent of off label use is with good intentions. Im sure that most of the off label use is beneficial... but right now, there are no real rules, and the system is being heavily abused.




*sigh*

wow you seriously have the hardest time admitting your fault.

Your ORIGINAL QUOTE, says, SPECIFICALLY

"So you don't think doctor's recieve financial incentives from pharmaceutical companies?"

So basically you're asking if I believe pill pushing exsists or not? Right? was this not your ORIGINAL rebuttal?

Now, all you're doing is going off on the correlation of pill pushing WITH FDA approval. Because you didn't understand how you INITIALLY fell off topic.

I'll repeat myself AGAIN.

We weren't even doubting the existance of pill pushing, that may be involved with the use of off-label drugs, but it's not a relevant when it comes to legalizing drugs.

Nobody was arguing that FDA approval effects how pharmaceutical companies use their drugs. BUT...

What you SAID, in your ORIGINAL RESPONSE, was IF I BELIEVED that doctors receive financial incentives from companies.

Go read your original response. That is where you fell off topic on this incredibly long tangent of yours.



Quote:


i am hoping I made my point clear, but I have to reiterate it here. You were the one that misread, or quoted out of context. The entire point of the paragraphs under the heading 6) were an entire point regarding off label use.




Once again, you spend too much time repeating your points instead of actually addressing my rebuttal.



Quote:


and you seem to think that the system right now isnt being abused, and that using bayer to prevent heart attacks is justification for killing elderly people and putting 5 year olds on amphetamines and antipsychotics.




So whose putting words in other people's mouths? Did you not even read the post your replying too? If you did you might have come across this:

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:When did i deny off-label use in FDA approval? Where? Are you seriously just making up arguements for the sake of arguing?

What I said, in response to you saying, that FDA approval is a big issue with off-label, is that It's not the original purpose FOR off-label use.




Way to go there buddy, way to read.


Quote:





Neurontin was in the top 50 most prescribed drugs at one point. that is just one drug.




Yes, and how many OTHER drugs in the top 10 most prescribed drugs are off-label used anti-psychotics? I'll wait.



Quote:

If anything sinks in.... I want this next quote to. because it is the coup de grace.
See, you are trying to downplay the entire market of psychopharmaceuticals as being "just a blip". well, how do I then find things like this?
Quote:

In its study, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 2.4 billion drugs prescribed in visits to doctors and hospitals in 2005. Of those, 118 million were for antidepressants.

High blood pressure drugs were the next most-common with 113 million prescriptions.





118 million out of 2.4 billion

let's see, that's about 5%? OMG 5% of drugs are used for anti-depressants I guess we should regulate the off-label use of the other 95% of drugs....nice.


Quote:

and if you look at any statistic, you will see that sales of sntidepressants and such have constantly grown.

See, if I was going into cardiac arrest or some equally life threatening situation, sure, I would hope that the doctor uses the best possible course of treatment, regardless of what the FDA has signed off on.
No one is saying that there arent those situations where a doctor needs to have all drugs in his arsenal... but there are better ways of going about it.
Many drugs eventually get FDA approval for other uses. But there has to be a compromise.... would it be so hard to allow off label use only for life or death situations? maybe not, we can discuss the pros and cons of that.... just a suggestion... one avenue for compromise on this subject.
Maybe we can prohibit general practitioners from prescribing off label. I would love to see psychiatrists unable to prescribe off label.... why do they need to anyway?
Which is it? are the off label uses we have right now really that superior to the drugs we have for their intended uses? I dont see why there is such a scramble to have the newest off label use implemented instantly when there are 4 and 5 other drugs that were designed, and have been working fine through their intended use, to treat that specific condition.
sure, maybe it would take a little reworking, a little rewording, of the FDA guidelines, maybe even create an "alternative uses" advisory panel that can streamline the red tape required for the FDA to approve a drug for an alternate use.





So you're not really against off-label drug use, as much as your against how off-label drug use is regulated....

Why didn't you just say that to begin with?


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555967 - 10/24/07 07:05 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

yeah, but how do they even find the alternative use in the first place? at some point, there either had to be a coincidence of a patient with a double condition that were both treated by the same drug and they find otu that way.... or someone did take a shot in the dark in an unethical fashion.




My friend, if you at all studied ANY form of human physiology, or any pharmacology, you'd be able to answer this question yourself.

Drugs, hormones, multiple effects, multiple mechanisms, homeostasis, related etiologies.....

Quote:

There has to be some impetus of the discovery. I dont know, maybe I am that clueless about pharmacology...




It sounds like it.

Quote:

maybe they do just get a bunch of volunteers with a rainbow of conditions and they just hand the drug out and ask "what areas have you experienced progress"?
IMO, that is still unethical.




Once again, that came straight out of your imagination. You're doing nothing here but assuming. You have to realize how stringent human testing with pharmaceuticals has become BECAUSE of all these incidents of random noninvoluntary testing. There's been a whole clause in the bill of rights for patients.

As I had eluded to all those posts ago, a drug's additional benefits can be uncovered through the advent of research (which is sometimes heavily biased by drug companies, of course), but many times they've proven alot of benefit in these situations.

When a phsyiological "link" between a disease and a pre-exsisting condition is confirmed through years and years of studies, it can open doors for how a mechanism of a drug ALREADY being used for a condition, can also treat related physiologic mechanisms.


Quote:

but do you get what I am saying? at some point, there had to be atleast one unethical doctor or study that was a complete shot in the dark... otherwise, the use would have be previously known from the initial studies for FDA approval.
You dont think that some chemist comes in and says "I have made a new drug! rally the chimps and lets see what it does!".
Im sure behind every drug, there is an exhausting review with a plethora of scientists trying to find every possible beneficial property of the drug... if after animal and human testing, these "alternative uses" go unnoticed, then there is only two ways that the new use can be found: coincidence, or unethically.




You're also forgetting how COMPETING scientists will try to explore everything possibly WRONG with the properties of a drug. Which is a huge facet of pharmaceutical research.


Quote:

Otherwise, my entire point regarding passing drugs on the narrowest of uses is supported... because I cant imagine that many beneficial uses of drugs go unnoticed in the phases of testing.... but what can go "unnoticed" is the safety and efficacy testing that is needed to ensure that the alternative use is truly safe and effective for peripheral uses.




I agree that it's BS that in those situations, when another major effect of a drug is put aside in order to get FDA approval.

But you have to understand that many times, the reverse of that situation occurs. Many times, a drug's more significant benefits aren't really discovered untill long after the drug has been approved and prescribed for another use.

When "testing" for the benefits of a pharmaceutical, many effects go UNLOOKED, because the group being tested on don't have OTHER conditions from which the drug can be used. Some are related, some aren't.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7556544 - 10/24/07 09:15 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:

1) again, you want to argue semantics in regards to the phrases "push to legalize" and then go even further to put words or thoughts into my mouth. i completely understood what you meant... granted, I didnt think I was talking to a person as inept at debate as you, and figured that it was common sense to read an entire quote before quoting it out of context.




awww, resorting to insults because you were caught MISREADING a post while you were too eager to reply to it?  You're still missing the issue of YOU misreading what I originally p osted, despite me repeating it HOW MANY times now?



yet you dont see that you either intentionally misquoted me out of context, or misread/didnt even read the entire paragraph of my very first post in this thread.
Go back, and read it, and you will understand why I thought that you were actually trying to say something coherent.
You dont seem to understand the link here. I have laid it out multiple times in this thread, and you refuse to even acknowledge it, because you think that I am misreading you. Im not.
It is very simple. off label use is veery big part of getting FDA approval. If you have a drug that is beneficial to .5 % of the population, it isnt financially wise to spend millions of dollars of research with the possibility of it not even getting passed to possibly make the slightest profits if it does get FDA approval. With the provision of legal off label use, you can bribe doctors into using these pills for conditions that effect 10% of the population, which could ensure 20X more profit for the drug.
THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS RELEVANT.

If you want to debate this, then great. In fact, if you want to debate anything other than your obstinate point of you thinking I misunderstood you.. great!
I think you really need to go back, to my very first post in this thread, and see how you quoted me out of context, which led me to believe that you understood my entire stance regarding off label use.... why? because it was laid out in the very quote that you quoted out of context.
so, after all of this.... let me try and see if I understood what you were saying in your post where you quoted me out of context.
Your rebuttal is simply that the practice of off label use wasnt "enacted" (or atleast allowed to go on) in the name of making FDA approval easier?
if that is the case, then yeah, i agree with you... but then that means that you completely misunderstood my entire initial post... because I was never talking about the origins of off label use.

if I am completely off on what it was that you were trying to get at by quoting me out of context... then please clarify it, because frankly I am tired of discussing semantics with you, and maybe we can move on.
If anything, my confusion came from thinking that you were responding to my entire quote regarding off label use, instead of trying to refute my nonexistent stance regarding why off label use was originally implemented.... because my entire post was about the current practice and lack of regulation involving off label use.
So, if anything, it was you who made the first obfuscation... because my initial post is very clear and concise.






Quote:

Quote:


Neurontin was in the top 50 most prescribed drugs at one point. that is just one drug.




Yes, and how many OTHER drugs in the top 10 most prescribed drugs are off-label used anti-psychotics?  I'll wait.



what does that have to do with anything? didnt you just get done reading that CNN quote? i can only imagine you did since you quoted it. I dont need to look for an anti-psychotic used off label in the top 10 most prescribed drugs. I was merely trying to show you, which I did, that psychopharmaceuticals arent some minute sector of the drug market. It is obvious that that isnt the case when the most prescribed group of drugs are anti-depressants, which i dont need to tell you are constantly used off label. Almost every single anti-depressant is used off label to treat almost every single other mental disorder.



Quote:

If anything sinks in.... I want this next quote to. because it is the coup de grace.
See, you are trying to downplay the entire market of psychopharmaceuticals as being "just a blip". well, how do I then find things like this?
Quote:




In its study, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 2.4 billion drugs prescribed in visits to doctors and hospitals in 2005. Of those, 118 million were for antidepressants.

High blood pressure drugs were the next most-common with 113 million prescriptions.





118 million out of 2.4 billion

let's see, that's about 5%?  OMG 5% of drugs are used for anti-depressants I guess we should regulate the off-label use of the other 95% of drugs....nice.



combine that with benzos, atypical and typical anti-psychotics, and drugs like lithium.... then im sure you have a sector that isnt some negligible amount. Not that 5% is even a negligible amount.. it is plenty to warrant a better system.

Quote:

So you're not really against off-label drug use, as much as your against how off-label drug use is regulated....

Why didn't you just say that to begin with?


:yesnod:

I thought I had said that before.... but you know what... lets just say I didnt so we dont get sidetracked into another semantic argument.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7587431 - 11/02/07 01:33 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

JESUS CHRIST ON CRUTCHES!

I am both happy and fucking stunned at the response I've had. I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond, school, money, and personal life eat a lot of time. Unfortunately it has been so long now that I can't read through all the posts in the short time I have this morning. So to quickly answer the majority of responses/challenges I ask you this.

IF a drug is found to be effective for patient A (by their report) what is the problem? To clarify, person A might suffer a spastic penis as a result of said drug, however THEY find it effective and consider the side effects worth the overall improvement, then the issue of a spastic penis is not a problem.

What I am trying to convey here is the miracle of consciousness. As humans we have the CHOICE to continue or discontinue a medication as WE see fit. WE have the ability to analyze the effectiveness of a drug by OUR own standards and values. If YOU don't like it, STOP TAKING THE FUCKING MEDICINE. This is really a basic concept, those who wish to interfere with others choice are the cause of the current loss in civil liberties.

In Oregon the latest example of this is the new smoking tax on the ballet. It presumes to know what is best for the general public, as a result those who support it consider them selves justified in taxing those who engage in an activity of their own fucking FREE WILL.

So to answer another large portion of responses/challenges, what if your doctor refuses to listen to your requests and/or accept input from you the patient.

First, to defuse the wave of responses this is sure to elicit, YES doctors SHOULD consider your input, anything less is immoral. However, doctors are human too, the lure of money corrupts some.
That said, if your doctor is unsatisfactory, FIND ANOTHER ONE. Really, is that so hard? If you were hiring someone to paint your house and they refused to listen to your input and/or did a shitty job, would you keep paying him? Of course not, that would be the hight of stupidity.

As I must now shower and prepare for school I must end this response. But before I leave I want to pose a very serious question to all readers. This question is of the utmost importance for the survival of a theoretically democratic system (personally I believe it is doomed to failure).

Are you responsible for your own actions? Do you have free will? When you are hungry do you eat? When sleepy, do you sleep? If your life is threatened by another to you take steps to ensure your safety?
Now as humans I assume most if not all of you responded yes to each of the above questions. So one must ask, why do so many place blame on others when they have the freedom to control or modify the situation? The answer to this is simple, freedom is downright horrifying. The majority of the population is constantly seeking a leader, or some authority figure. When said authority figure is in error, his followers place blame on him. When it is they who choose to follow.

So the question is this.

Do you want to be free?

If you wish to surrender your freedom to another party, I ask you this with complete seriousness. Please leave. Please leave your home, your state, and your country. Find a place that will control EVERY aspect of your life. For by staying here (here being the US), you do nothing but erode society for those who wish to be free.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 1 month, 3 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7587479 - 11/02/07 01:46 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

goddamn, is this argument STILL going on?

Quote:

ranke said:
What I am trying to convey here is the miracle of consciousness. As humans we have the CHOICE to continue or discontinue a medication as WE see fit. WE have the ability to analyze the effectiveness of a drug by OUR own standards and values. If YOU don't like it, STOP TAKING THE FUCKING MEDICINE. This is really a basic concept, those who wish to interfere with others choice are the cause of the current loss in civil liberties.




And what makes you think we don't do exactly that? Most sane people DO stop taking the meds if they don't like em, that's a no brainer (DURRRRRRR).

Quote:


Do you want to be free?

If you wish to surrender your freedom to another party, I ask you this with complete seriousness. Please leave. Please leave your home, your state, and your country. Find a place that will control EVERY aspect of your life. For by staying here (here being the US), you do nothing but erode society for those who wish to be free.




uh, is this for real? this is seriously something a typical republican would say. Here's the thing... we as the citizens in this country also have the freedom to CHANGE society, if we don't like what's going on in it. That is the point here... it is NOT a personal matter as simple as deciding whether to take a fucking pill or not, it is an issue of spreading knowledge about how the pharmacy business REALLY works, as much of it seems to be kept hidden from public knowledge... Don't you feel that it is an important issue that needs to be addressed, at the very least?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7587684 - 11/02/07 02:40 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

combine that with benzos, atypical and typical anti-psychotics, and drugs like lithium....





See that's the problem. Alot of those drugs which you do criticize for being used as antipsychotics, are used for many other clinical uses.

There's alot of overlap with many of these pharmacueticals that you're unaware of.

Benzos are also used in anaesthetics, and drugs like lithium are also used to treat certain circulatory disorders.


Same thing with many atypical and typical antipsychotics.


Which is why the issue of even trying to regulate off-label use gets really hairy.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 1 month, 3 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7587731 - 11/02/07 02:52 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

I bet Wiccan Seeker could develop a new drug and get it passed by the FDA. "this shit cures insomnia, fatigue, AND terrorism, yo! in yo face al qaeda!!!!!"

no seriously though, i think he could do it. hes got the creativity for it.


Edited by Crystal G (11/02/07 03:23 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,267
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 5 months, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7587841 - 11/02/07 03:21 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Habanero Suppositories



i just noticed in this thread how you were talking about how you would always show up to the doc with positive tests for various narcotics, and how you were also complaining that they wouldn't comply with your prescription demands.


Way to be a burden to the medical community.


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 1 month, 3 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7587861 - 11/02/07 03:25 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
i just noticed in this thread how you were talking about how you would always show up to the doc with positive tests for various narcotics, and how you were also complaining that they wouldn't comply with your prescription demands.

Way to be a burden to the medical community.




I never demanded scheduled substances, because I know that as standard procedure, anybody with an addiction problem is not supposed to be subscribed those.

However, I had a lot of negative side effects on the meds I was on, and made suggestions for different meds--ones that weren't scheduled, ones that didn't have addictive potential, and they were ALL declined, and she insisted I stay on the meds regardless of the symptoms I was having. GEE, I WONDER WHY SHE KEPT ME ON ZYPREXA CONSIDERING IT'S A NEW DRUG STILL UNDER PATENT AND ALL.

When I first arrived to the unit the first time, I had infected thrombophlebitis in my left arm and requested antibiotics that my regular doctor prescribed me. I showed her my arm, it was fucking infected, and SHE REFUSED. she said "itll heal on its own, show me if it gets worse." Anyways, a few days later I ended up getting a fever which the nurses noted, recorded, and reported to the doctor (the one thing they did right)... but basically this means she waited until I got sick to treat my infection. So... what exactly was the point in that?

As for the "get a new doctor." WELL I FUCKING COULDN'T BECAUSE I WAS LOCKED UP IN THE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT AND I HAD NO CHOICE. I'm telling you, they treat patients like SHIT in there. Just restrain and medicate, it doesn't solve anything. Fuck, the very last time I was in there I even snuck in a belt just in case they planned on keeping me there for too long. I'm not a suicidal person by any means, but I'd rather die than live there.

You call ME a burden to the medical community, hah! Don't forget they're the ones making enormous profits off MEEEE, chum!

Some hospitals are legit and I respect those institutions, but others are the bloodsucking scum of society.


Edited by Crystal G (11/02/07 04:03 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: zorbman]
    #7590415 - 11/03/07 10:40 AM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zorbman said:
Quote:

I am at a loss for how so many people have come to the conclusion that doctors don't know shit, that anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and ADD medications are dangerous and worthless, that any ol' herb is beneficial, and that exercise and proper diet fix everything.




Wow. Four strawman arguments in one sentence!

*calls Guinness book*




zorbman meet the shroomery, the shroomery meet zorbman

I can't believe you guys haven't met before.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/22/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: d33p]
    #7592136 - 11/03/07 09:10 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Thanks for quoting this, otherwise I would not have noticed. I would like to point out that without an original claim or statement this is not a straw man argument. For example, had I been responding to "I think that western medicine should be a last resort", the quoted text above would then be a straw man argument. However, this is not the case. I do not make any conscious attempts to argue using such tactics. Also, by (falsely) claiming that I was using a straw man argument you diverted attention away from the central point and avoided making any serious response. I am well educated in the area of pharmacology and I doubt very much that anyone with a decent education in either pharmacology or neurochemistry would disagree with my claims. Except possibly specific points where I have made a mistake.

I would like to address this issue seriously, so I have a challenge.

IF someone can make a claim, such as "Drug A has been shown to be toxic to serotonin neurons." Then back up that claim with at least 2 studies done by different institutions and researchers. I will bow out of any argument on the safety of said drug and respond only with "it is each individuals choice what to consume and what not to consume".


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7593358 - 11/04/07 03:34 AM (13 years, 8 months ago)

I think you need to read the entire thread before you jump in and try to refute one tiny aspect of all that has been discussed so far. I know there is a lot of pointless semantic debating, but there is a lot of debate within some of those tangents.
you have time, the thread isnt going anywhere.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7600132 - 11/05/07 10:20 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ranke said:
What I am trying to convey here is the miracle of consciousness. As humans we have the CHOICE to continue or discontinue a medication as WE see fit. WE have the ability to analyze the effectiveness of a drug by OUR own standards and values. If YOU don't like it, STOP TAKING THE FUCKING MEDICINE. This is really a basic concept, those who wish to interfere with others choice are the cause of the current loss in civil liberties.




Right... cus everyone has the time, money, and motivation to goto medical school. :rolleyes:


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An Evil Plan WebLiZaRD 1,104 15 07/04/04 08:59 AM
by WebLiZaRD
* pharms sunchaser 710 6 06/10/06 12:02 PM
by SneezingPenis
* Drugs, Pharms and Me recalcitrant 972 5 09/16/04 01:40 AM
by Skikid16
* Dangerous foods? kugis 675 2 01/11/06 05:26 PM
by kugis
* LSD mentally more dangerous than shrooms?
( 1 2 all )
Hershey 12,203 21 01/24/05 03:50 AM
by Majestic
* Dangers of the Lotus position? koppie 3,359 9 11/18/05 12:01 AM
by Icelander
* I do drugs. tak 867 2 10/19/03 10:04 AM
by Anonymous
* should i go to the docter or can someone help out please? DistortedEyes 1,213 17 10/27/04 05:09 PM
by TheDude

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: CherryBom, boO, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, Jokeshopbeard, CookieCrumbs
9,568 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.