Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. 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: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
"Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock
    #7545022 - 10/21/07 10:43 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

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. For starters lets look at anti-depressants.

Anti-depressants
So before you go condemning all anti-depressants as just a way for pharmaceutical companies to make money (although that is one of their main functions) and that they serve no purpose, why not figure out how they work?

Currently most anti-depressants fall into one of the following categories:

SSRI's
This stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
The theory behind this is by increasing serotonin levels you can remove some of the symptoms of depression. An SSRI works by slowing the reuptake of serotonin from the synapses. However it does not slow the reuptake of serotonin at all receptors. Due to the number of 5-HT (serotonin) receptor families and the subtypes located within each one I won't cover which drug affects what subtype. Suffice it to say that SSRI's increase serotonin levels by slowing the rate at which serotonin is removed from the synapses.

So the question is of course, what's so bad about increasing serotonin levels? The answer is of course not much. Aside from possible side effects (present in ANY drug, yes herbs have side effects) there is nothing to suggest SSRI's are in anyway "damaging" to the brain. In fact, SSRI's may have neuroprotective properties.1

One last important thing to note is that the drugs you all know and love are entirely dependent serotonin. Psychedelics act as 5-HT receptor agonists, stimulating the receptors directly rather than increasing serotonin levels.

Now you've all probably heard about some of the side effects associated with using SSRI's and maybe consider that evidence to support your claim that they are dangerous, useless, doc mumbojumbo, etc, etc, etc. So if you are depressed and are offered an SSRI by your doctor what should you do? Evaluate the positives compared to the negatives and MAKE UP YOUR OWN FUCKING MIND. If you don't want to risk the side effects Don't Take The God Damned Drug. You managed to make the decision with psychedelics, use the powerful brain and do it again.

I'm tired for now, I will expand this post tomorrow.

1http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/20/24/9104


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerodfarva
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=====-----=-=-=-=-I
Male


Registered: 07/31/07
Posts: 4,982
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7545041 - 10/21/07 10:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

edit


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


Edited by trendal (10/22/07 06:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: rodfarva]
    #7545049 - 10/21/07 10:51 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

edit


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Edited by trendal (10/22/07 06:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: rodfarva]
    #7545053 - 10/21/07 10:51 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

lol, what have I done suck so much in your eyes?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7545097 - 10/21/07 11:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I'm sorry, while SSRI's are still safer than the old-school tricyclic MAOIs, there is a lot of debate over whether the withdrawal is safe. I was on a low dose of prozac for a month (only 10mg-30mg), that a psychiatrist had prescribed to me (though I am not sure WHY, considering I told her I had NO depression problems)... after I got fed up when I was seeing no improvements, I quit, and then I suddenly DEVELOPED depression for a brief period... WHEN I NEVER FUCKING HAD IT BEFORE. The reason? If you are chemically increasing serotonin levels in your body, your brain downregulates and becomes accustomed to producing far less in the long run.

I never touched SSRI's since. Anything that can give me the alleged symptom that it's supposed to cure (especially when I never even HAD the fucking symptom to start off with) is not safe.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or lack of knowledge, it's the fucking system. The issue here, is that huge pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly visit various medical institutes and hold conferences with doctors, to basically act like legal drug pushers. They even go as far as to offer vacation trips, consolation fucking PRIZES to the doctors for getting this many patients on a new substance. Don't you think it's a little strange when a single doctor has nearly all of his patients on Ambien or Lexapro?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMK Ultra
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/07
Posts: 70
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7545217 - 10/21/07 11:33 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

The effects of these drugs are unpredictable at best. While they do work for some people, one statistic showed that 70% of people on anti-depressants still had symptoms of depression. And that's a GOOD scenario. A lot of us have had some hellatious experiences with psychiatric meds, myself included. Many of these experiences could have been avoided if only these medications weren't handed out so freely by doctors who, most of the time, don't so much as MENTION the possibility of side effects or "discontinuation syndrome" (read: withdrawal).

Doctors are not psychiatrists, and it's time they stop prescribing drugs for mental problems that they know little to nothing about. How many people in here who've been prescribed psychiatric meds can honestly tell me that the doctor informed you of the seriousness of these drugs? Told you that they weren't a long-term solution to your problems, but a short-term diversion meant for the most seriously depressed or mentally ill patients? Warned you of the risks, such as seizures (Wellbutrin), extreme weight gain (Risperdal and Anafranil), nightmares, suicidal thoughts, constipation, dry mouth, fatigue, stroke (Paxil) mania, discontinuation syndrome, diabetes/ketoacidosis (Seroquel/Risperdal, etc.) and all the other not-so-uncommon side effects caused by use of these drugs by the wrong people? I certainly wasn't informed of ANY of these things. The drugs, in all instances, were made out to be as safe as peanut butter, which just isn't true.

I realize that they have their place in the pharmacopoeia, but the fact is they're just prescribed too often. It's become the answer to EVERYTHING. Got anxiety? Take a pill. Feeling sad? Take a pill. They're even inventing new disorders (PMDD) to treat with old medications (Sarafem, which is really just Prozac taken at a certain time of the month. This was done on the spur of the moment, about a week before the patent for Prozac was going to be up, so they patented "Sarafem" as a treatment for "PMDD". Genius).

Maybe YOU should do some research on psychiatric medications, because God knows I've done mine. After having a seizure and "pseudoparkinsonian reaction" on Wellbutrin, gaining 50 lbs. in 3 months on Risperdal, spitting on my roommate and trying to cut myself for the first time while quitting Lexapro, and spending 6 years of my life in a drug-induced amotivational state, you better believe I've done the research.

I'm proud to say I've been off all medications since December 2006 and will never be giving money to the makers of these drugs again, at least not for this purpose.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineboxcarguy07
Uno
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 3,942
Loc: SC
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MK Ultra]
    #7545251 - 10/21/07 11:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Preach it brother!


--------------------
:musicnote:Music doesn't stop at the ears when it begins at the heart.:musicnote:


:psychsplit:"Sit in reverie and watch the changing color of the waves that break upon the idle seashore of the mind."
            -Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:psychsplit:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7545284 - 10/21/07 11:47 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
The issue here, is that huge pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly visit various medical institutes and hold conferences with doctors, to basically act like legal drug pushers. They even go as far as to offer vacation trips, consolation fucking PRIZES to the doctors for getting this many patients on a new substance. Don't you think it's a little strange when a single doctor has nearly all of his patients on Ambien or Lexapro?




Of course they are pushed to prescribed certain things and yes the pharmaceutical companies methods are disgusting. Thats the way capitalist systems work (I've got nothing against capitalism). It is your job as the consumer to educate your self and CHOOSE. Everything has risks and the medical community will debate till the end of time whether or not the withdrawl from SSRI's is damaging (I couldn't find any studies showing it was). But there are some people who benefit from the use of SSRI's. They have deemed it acceptable. If you find that it does not meet your requirements just stop taking it. If you object to being prescribed Ambian (and yes I know doctors push it, I had it pushed at me) you are the fucking customer. Doctors swear the hippocratic oath and in that they swear to work only for the good of their patient. You pay the doctor, if he doesn't do his job well GET ANOTHER ONE. If your doctor says "I want to try Ambien for you sleep problem" and you object all you have to say is this "I know Ambien is the first line treatment for sleeplessness but it's brand new and still under patent, it's really expensive and I would prefer another similar sedative hypnotic that is available in a generic version. I was thinking maybe Zopiclone since it's so similar to ambien but it's not under patent."

Now it doesn't have to be that detailed but if you want good service you need to prepare your self. It if 100% your responsibility, you cannot expect other people to always be honest. If you get your car fixed you ask what was wrong don't you? If they tell you they needed to change the oil and it will cost you 700 dollars you know you're being fucked with. Take responsibility for your own god damn actions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MK Ultra]
    #7545306 - 10/21/07 11:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

*sigh*
Again doctors are people and people make mistakes. So take responsibility for your own health. You wouldn't let someone pack your parachute would you? When I get sick I tell the doctor exactly what I want. If I get a cold I go to the doctor and say "my throat hurts, I feel like shit, I need to go to school, can you give me prescription cough syrup?" (asking for codeine cough syrup by name is drug seeking behavior and gets marked in your records) And you know what? I get what I ask for. When I got a 1 month script for the still under patent 30mg adderall xr's (they give you the first month free to push their product) I accepted and at the end of a month said I didn't like them. I asked for a dose spread out over the day as IR and he gave me 10mg 3x a day. A good doctor listens to you and recognizes that you know your symptoms and body chemistry best.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineVisionary Tools
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: rodfarva]
    #7545883 - 10/22/07 06:51 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

edit...

Come back to us when you have studied the history of pharmacy and tell us why it is that SSRI's which are supposed to make people better statistically increase suicide rates.

If I'm depressed, there's no remedy for it except bud, exercise and sunlight. Works far better than any lithium or prozac. Oh no! That's not going to pay for all your years in medical school? Yes it will. Not everyone is willing to educate themselves, not everyone is able/willing to see the cause of their problems and resolve that, thinking life's ills can be cured by a course of expensive little pills.


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


Edited by trendal (10/22/07 06:56 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Visionary Tools]
    #7545909 - 10/22/07 07:19 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Visionary Tools said:
Come back to us when you have studied the history of pharmacy and tell us why it is that SSRI's which are supposed to make people better statistically increase suicide rates.





Because depressed people are far more likely to attempt suicide. Further, this effect is relatively weak, and only found in adolescents.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDimensionX
King of Birds
Male

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: badchad]
    #7545963 - 10/22/07 07:56 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I dont think you can call this poppy cock though. When peoples health has been turned into a commercial enterprise i think there is just cause for concern.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Visionary Tools]
    #7545969 - 10/22/07 07:58 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

As a pharmacology student...

He said he was a pharmacology student...so he probably knows a bit more than any armchair researcher :wink:

Drugs are drugs...they aren't "evil" or "good" or anything. They are tools, and useful tools at that!

Taking a pure substance will almost always be advisable over taking a mixture of substances as with a herb or other "natural" remedy. We should draw a line here in between "psychiatric drugs" and "regular drugs"...psychiatric drugs are widely over prescribed - and although this is as much the fault of the consumer as anyone, there is a sizable portion of general practitioners who seem to like prescribing these drugs.

Regular drugs - those that do not have an effect on the brain (or at least do not have a psychological effect as their primary effect) - are invaluable to modern society. A great many people would not be alive today if it were not for drugs. My mother could have very likely experienced a hypertensive crisis if it were not for the beta-blockers she takes. My father would almost certainly have experienced a stroke or heart attack by now if it were not for the cholesterol reducing statins he is on. That's just in my immediate family.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: trendal]
    #7546086 - 10/22/07 09:07 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Hurrah!

Thank you both badchad and trendal.

Trendal is correct and said essentially what I was trying to say but much more simply. I would also like to make clear I do recognize that some medications are way over prescribed. However mistakes by some do not invalidate all possible uses.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7546589 - 10/22/07 12:01 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ranke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
The issue here, is that huge pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly visit various medical institutes and hold conferences with doctors, to basically act like legal drug pushers. They even go as far as to offer vacation trips, consolation fucking PRIZES to the doctors for getting this many patients on a new substance. Don't you think it's a little strange when a single doctor has nearly all of his patients on Ambien or Lexapro?




Of course they are pushed to prescribed certain things and yes the pharmaceutical companies methods are disgusting. Thats the way capitalist systems work (I've got nothing against capitalism). It is your job as the consumer to educate your self and CHOOSE. Everything has risks and the medical community will debate till the end of time whether or not the withdrawl from SSRI's is damaging (I couldn't find any studies showing it was). But there are some people who benefit from the use of SSRI's. They have deemed it acceptable. If you find that it does not meet your requirements just stop taking it. If you object to being prescribed Ambian (and yes I know doctors push it, I had it pushed at me) you are the fucking customer. Doctors swear the hippocratic oath and in that they swear to work only for the good of their patient. You pay the doctor, if he doesn't do his job well GET ANOTHER ONE. If your doctor says "I want to try Ambien for you sleep problem" and you object all you have to say is this "I know Ambien is the first line treatment for sleeplessness but it's brand new and still under patent, it's really expensive and I would prefer another similar sedative hypnotic that is available in a generic version. I was thinking maybe Zopiclone since it's so similar to ambien but it's not under patent."

Now it doesn't have to be that detailed but if you want good service you need to prepare your self. It if 100% your responsibility, you cannot expect other people to always be honest. If you get your car fixed you ask what was wrong don't you? If they tell you they needed to change the oil and it will cost you 700 dollars you know you're being fucked with. Take responsibility for your own god damn actions.




Yes, that was my point. Many times doctors and the large companies are frankly immoral and have disgusting ulterior motives, and if they know what's good for them, they shouldn't walk around talking big shit all the time.

The points are here:
1) If you admit to your doctor you have used illegal substances in the past, this will raise a huge red flag and make you automatically illegible for certain items (despite the fact that you may need them).
2) If your doctor suspects you of being mentally handicapped in any way, it can be used against you in ways I will not even begin to describe. Most of your pleas will be considered irrelevant and dismissed.

Since doctors always seem to "know better" and "know what's good for you," seems that the only way to get prescribed what you want is to lie your ass off and hide your true self.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546626 - 10/22/07 12:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Since doctors always seem to "know better" and "know what's good for you," seems that the only way to get prescribed what you want is to lie your ass off and hide your true self.

In your case, crystal, I do not think what you want is what you need. It's the doctor's job to figure out what you need, not give you what you want.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546698 - 10/22/07 12:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:


Yes, that was my point. Many times doctors and the large companies are frankly immoral and have disgusting ulterior motives, and if they know what's good for them, they shouldn't walk around talking big shit all the time.





You sound like someone whose more upset at the "status symbol" given to doctors rather than the performance of their work.

There's way too much "conspiracy theorist" mentality, you don't even consider that most doc's simply take the requests of their patients.

Alot of kids who initially get prescribed anti-deppressants, is because of their PARENTS. It's the PARENTS who don't see their kids reaching their OWN academic expectations, so they realize...

"oh my kid, something must be wrong with him, he's not getting straight A's"

"he must have ADHD, i've done all the research online, can you give him something for it?"

A doctor can't refuse this kind of request, especially if the overseer is the parents, who legally, can make the health care decisions. If the doctor refuses, the parents will simply go find another pediatrician untill they get what they want, which is the drugs for their kids who don't even have ADHD.

Quote:

The points are here:
1) If you admit to your doctor you have used illegal substances in the past, this will raise a huge red flag and make you automatically illegible for certain items (despite the fact that you may need them).
2) If your doctor suspects you of being mentally handicapped in any way, it can be used against you in ways I will not even begin to describe. Most of your pleas will be considered irrelevant and dismissed.






1) substance abuse with doctors is a huge issue, BECAUSE the access to all kinds of schedules are at your disposal. At the hospital i work at, they'll on occasion, find a resident or anaesthesiolgist completely hopped up on their own drugs, passed out on hospital beds....of course by law they're immediately stripped of their license.

2) You clearly know nothing about the patient bill of rights, and you clearly are exaggerating this beyond the point of logic. Maybe you've been watching too much "requiem for a dream"


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7546833 - 10/22/07 01:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
You sound like someone whose more upset at the "status symbol" given to doctors rather than the performance of their work.




I'm actually upset because I've taken some pretty big shit from medical staff because of personal choices I've taken with my own body. Fuck bringing up the concept of status symbol, that hasn't got shit to do with anything. EVERYBODY'S got some level of status, goddamn.

Quote:

1) substance abuse with doctors is a huge issue, BECAUSE the access to all kinds of schedules are at your disposal. At the hospital i work at, they'll on occasion, find a resident or anaesthesiolgist completely hopped up on their own drugs, passed out on hospital beds....of course by law they're immediately stripped of their license.

2) You clearly know nothing about the patient bill of rights, and you clearly are exaggerating this beyond the point of logic. Maybe you've been watching too much "requiem for a dream"




First, edit I saw requiem once when I was like 14, and I thought the movie sucked balls. Second, I know these things based on my own experience. When I had a nervous breakdown and was sent to the psychiatric unit, man I realized a lot of the patients in there STILL to this DAY get treated like SHIT.

My doctor would not prescribe me anything except for Prozac and Zyprexa (like no fucking shit, she was just scripting that shit to everybody else). She thought I was going to abuse seroquel even, and wouldn't give me that. After hearing what everybody else was on, I knew that she only wanted to keep me on that shit to benefit her own self.

First day I went in there, I told her I have temporal lobe epilepsy and requested neurontin. I even gave her the name and location of my neurologist, and she said "I'm not giving you those meds." WHAT. WHY??? Was she fucking waiting till I was gonna seize or something? It's fucking neurontin, not a goddamn barbiturate, what the fuck's her problem?

One guy in his 50's that was there, who had cerebral palsy and extreme depression--they caught him trying to hang himself in his room about 3 times. His psychiatrist, who finally got fed up with his lack of improvement, barged into the lunch room where we were all eating, and SCREAMED at this poor man (who is crying by the way), sharing all the explicit details of his condition, his suicide attempts, everything that is supposed to remain confidential, in front of EVERYBODY THERE.

Yeah. Fuck that. I realized this was NOT the place I wanted to be, this was NOT the place that was going to make me any better, and I requested to leave.

When I requested, they put me on a "lockdown" and held me there against my will. WHY??!?!?!! I ain't fucking bothering anybody, I told my doc from the beginning I AM NOT suicidal, nor did I have ANY homicidal tendencies. She then wrote me down for all the misbehaviors I DID NOT EVER HAVE to keep me there. WHEN ALL I DID WAS ASK TO LEAVE. Who the fuck wouldn't want to after seeing bullshit like that??? No seriously, I've never seen such bullying in my life at a hospital, in a professional setting I would only expect that shit from a team of police officers or jail wardens.

I ended up getting so pissed off I faked a bunch of panic attacks everyday I was in there just to score some lorazepam.


Edited by trendal (10/22/07 01:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MK Ultra]
    #7546848 - 10/22/07 01:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MK Ultra said:

Doctors are not psychiatrists,





:rolleyes:


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7546861 - 10/22/07 01:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

uhh, all doctors arent psychiatrists, but psychiatrists can be considered physicians, considering they DO specialize in a field of medicine. :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546869 - 10/22/07 01:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:


First day I went in there, I told her I have temporal lobe epilepsy and requested neurontin. I even gave her the name and location of my neurologist, and she said "I'm not giving you those meds." WHAT. WHY??? Was she fucking waiting till I was gonna seize or something? It's fucking neurontin, not a goddamn barbiturate, what the fuck's her problem?




Now you're just lying. Chronic lying and making up stories to prove your point is stupid.

I'm not going to point it out since you'll just vehemently deny it, but there' some tecnicalities in that story which indicate some pretty heavy falacies.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7546877 - 10/22/07 01:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
First day I went in there, I told her I have temporal lobe epilepsy and requested neurontin. I even gave her the name and location of my neurologist, and she said "I'm not giving you those meds." WHAT. WHY??? Was she fucking waiting till I was gonna seize or something? It's fucking neurontin, not a goddamn barbiturate, what the fuck's her problem?




Now you're just lying. Chronic lying and making up stories to prove your point is stupid.

I'm not going to point it out since you'll just vehemently deny it, but there' some tecnicalities in that story which indicate some pretty heavy falacies.




Haha, no here's the thing. She thought that all my seizures were drug-induced and I didn't have "real" epilepsy. This was her argument, anyway.

But please, continue making false assumptions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546878 - 10/22/07 01:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
uhh, all doctors arent psychiatrists, but psychiatrists can be considered physicians, considering they DO specialize in a field of medicine. :rolleyes:





he said "doctor's aren't psychiatrists"  he didn't say "all doctor's aren't psychiatrists".


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546882 - 10/22/07 01:19 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:


Now you're just lying. Chronic lying and making up stories to prove your point is stupid.

I'm not going to point it out since you'll just vehemently deny it, but there' some tecnicalities in that story which indicate some pretty heavy falacies.




Haha, no here's the thing. She thought that all my seizures were drug-induced and I didn't have "real" epilepsy. This was her argument, anyway.

But please, continue making false assumptions.







you missed what you said wrong in that initial attempt to telling a "true" story.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7546904 - 10/22/07 01:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:


Now you're just lying. Chronic lying and making up stories to prove your point is stupid.

I'm not going to point it out since you'll just vehemently deny it, but there' some tecnicalities in that story which indicate some pretty heavy falacies.




Haha, no here's the thing. She thought that all my seizures were drug-induced and I didn't have "real" epilepsy. This was her argument, anyway.

But please, continue making false assumptions.




you missed what you said wrong in that initial attempt to telling a "true" story.




ok, well this psych unit was located on a floor above the ER, and she could easily access all my files. the reason she thought this is because everytime ive seized, ive also shown up positive for SOMETHING in my system. ive told her thats irrelevant, considering no matter WHEN theyve test me, ive ALWAYS shown up positive for something in my system. that is just the nature of my life.

Nothing pissed me off more than not being able to leave. Once you're in there (even if you willingly go in initially), they can place that 72 hour hold on you anytime, for whatever reason, and they can postpone it again to make another 72 hour hold, and then another, and then another, and eventually 2 weeks would have gone by, or maybe a month... and THEN, when you get out, they'll expect you to PAY for this treatment you never wanted.

That. is. crap.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546916 - 10/22/07 01:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

you still missed it


you don't even realize what you said, or tried to make up in that story, which CLEARLY indicates that you're lying?


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7546935 - 10/22/07 01:38 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

umm, no. obviously, i dont.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7546993 - 10/22/07 01:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

next time you make up a story like this, try and do a bit more research on the drug that you claim to be requesting a prescription for. :lol:


and no, not google and wikipedia.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547001 - 10/22/07 01:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

what, you mean this?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a694007.html

wait wait, let me get this straight... are you claiming that neurontin, AKA gabapentin, is not used for treatment of seizures??? :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547021 - 10/22/07 01:57 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

now you're just trying too hard


you still don't get what you said that clearly reveals you're lying, but it's there.


It has nothing to do with the drug's use.


And you wouldn't be trying so hard to defend yourself if you knew you weren't lying.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547036 - 10/22/07 02:01 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

lol, i still dont understand where the lie is, you continue accusing (repetitiously i might add) but in reality youre pulling strings and gathering nothing. If you're so sure it's a bold-faced lie, then fucking call me out on it already. Come on, quit repeating yourself. Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it credible or true, lol.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547044 - 10/22/07 02:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
Once you're in there (even if you willingly go in initially), they can place that 72 hour hold on you anytime, for whatever reason, and they can postpone it again to make another 72 hour hold, and then another, and then another, and eventually 2 weeks would have gone by, or maybe a month... and THEN, when you get out, they'll expect you to PAY for this treatment you never wanted.






You seriously can't stop making up stories huh.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547053 - 10/22/07 02:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
lol, i still dont understand where the lie is, you continue accusing (repetitiously i might add) but in reality youre pulling strings and gathering nothing. If you're so sure it's a bold-faced lie, then fucking call me out on it already. Come on, quit repeating yourself. Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it credible or true, lol.





you've been trying so hard to get at it, why would you be unless you knew you WERE lying?


uhhh...because you're LYING?


What's funny is that someone who had actually experienced such similar things would be able to point out what came out of that creative imagination of yours.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547067 - 10/22/07 02:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Nothing pissed me off more than not being able to leave. Once you're in there (even if you willingly go in initially), they can place that 72 hour hold on you anytime, for whatever reason, and they can postpone it again to make another 72 hour hold, and then another, and then another, and eventually 2 weeks would have gone by, or maybe a month... and THEN, when you get out, they'll expect you to PAY for this treatment you never wanted.

As far as I know, they can't do that. Except maybe in times of emergency - such as a epidemic or something.

They may try and convince you to stay, for your own good, but if you really want to leave you will.

Hospitals aren't prisons :rolleyes:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547077 - 10/22/07 02:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
Once you're in there (even if you willingly go in initially), they can place that 72 hour hold on you anytime, for whatever reason, and they can postpone it again to make another 72 hour hold, and then another, and then another, and eventually 2 weeks would have gone by, or maybe a month... and THEN, when you get out, they'll expect you to PAY for this treatment you never wanted.





You seriously can't stop making up stories huh.




It's true, and it's happened. Anybody who has been held wrongly against their will can attest to this.

I'm sorry, but defending your position (which I'm sure you took personally) by simply dismissing a patient's experience as one outratgeous lie is despicable, and typical of anybody in that field who wants to cover up their footprints. If you KNOW what goes on in the medical field, then don't fucking hide it. Believe it or not, mistreatment, negligence, and malpractice DOES go on in hospitals, and anybody with half a brain can read the lawsuits and easily see this.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547100 - 10/22/07 02:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

:lol:


you can pretty much give up now.

you were held, past the legal limit of mandatory psychiatric detainment, and then the hospital requested you to pay for the overriding days of observation....


right.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: trendal]
    #7547108 - 10/22/07 02:19 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Nothing pissed me off more than not being able to leave. Once you're in there (even if you willingly go in initially), they can place that 72 hour hold on you anytime, for whatever reason, and they can postpone it again to make another 72 hour hold, and then another, and then another, and eventually 2 weeks would have gone by, or maybe a month... and THEN, when you get out, they'll expect you to PAY for this treatment you never wanted.

As far as I know, they can't do that. Except maybe in times of emergency - such as a epidemic or something.

They may try and convince you to stay, for your own good, but if you really want to leave you will.

Hospitals aren't prisons :rolleyes:




Yeah, tell that to my fucking record. All I know is that I got the hold on me after I complained about what I saw and requested to leave (which was getting denied for NO REASON, I wasn't depressed, suicidal, or violent), this escalated into a verbal argument with my psychiatrist and I, and then she slapped the hold on me.

Of course I eventually was able to leave, but only after I "fully complied" with their treatment programs, which I of course "faked" by telling them whatever they would want to hear and taking whatever meds they thought were good for me, just to get the hell out of there. Of course I never continued with their outpatient program once I was out, no fucking way.

Seriously, if you guys aren't aware of how poorly the psychiatric units are conducted, you guys should take a read about what goes on in there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547115 - 10/22/07 02:21 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
:lol:


you can pretty much give up now.

you were held, past the legal limit of mandatory psychiatric detainment, and then the hospital requested you to pay for the overriding days of observation....


right.




What, you want me to scan my medical bill from the hospital? They're requesting something like $35K from me BTW (this is AFTER insurance deducted everything too)... they kept me there for quite some time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547139 - 10/22/07 02:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I would love to be in your position because i'd have documented evidence to sue the hospital for millions!!!!


MILLIONS!!! :grin:


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547141 - 10/22/07 02:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

What, you want me to scan my medical bill from the hospital?

Would you?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: trendal]
    #7547155 - 10/22/07 02:31 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

seriously, i gotta see this one



google image search: hospital bill


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547164 - 10/22/07 02:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
I would love to be in your position because i'd have documented evidence to sue the hospital for millions!!!!


MILLIONS!!! :grin:




I've been in plenty of positions to sue hospitals for millions and it never ends up going anywhere.

If she wrote down on my hold that I was suicidal (which was most certainly well played seeing as how she put me on prozac, an antidepressant, she could allegedly claim that it was for my "depression"), then that shoots me down for any chance in court.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: trendal]
    #7547174 - 10/22/07 02:35 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
What, you want me to scan my medical bill from the hospital?

Would you?




Sure, I'd have to edit out all the personal info, insurance info, doctor info and even date and hospital location though, leaving nothing but the amount stated on the bill. I know certain medical personnel come onto this board and my identity would be at stake; they sure as fuck don't keep that shit confidential.

If that's worth it to you, to see the sum, then yes I'll do it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547199 - 10/22/07 02:39 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:


Sure, I'd have to edit out all the personal info, insurance info, doctor info and even date and hospital location though, leaving nothing but the amount stated on the bill. I know certain medical personnel come onto this board and my identity would be at stake; they sure as fuck don't keep that shit confidential.

If that's worth it to you, to see the sum, then yes I'll do it.





so basically you're going to deny and cross out all the incidence of mandatory commitment and just find a random docuement that has the number $35,000 on it?


because you're afraid people who work at that hospital you were treated at will read The Shroomery...


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547219 - 10/22/07 02:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:


Sure, I'd have to edit out all the personal info, insurance info, doctor info and even date and hospital location though, leaving nothing but the amount stated on the bill. I know certain medical personnel come onto this board and my identity would be at stake; they sure as fuck don't keep that shit confidential.

If that's worth it to you, to see the sum, then yes I'll do it.



so basically you're going to deny and cross out all the incidence of mandatory commitment and just find a random docuement that has the number $35,000 on it?

because you're afraid people who work at that hospital you were treated at will read The Shroomery...




Who the fuck is stupid enough to disclose their personal info on the internet? That's like posting a picture of my driver's license and home address for all of you to view.

Second of all, it's just a FUCKING BILL, not a document. They don't specify that there was a mandatory hold, they just state the sum for $35K. I don't have the fucking file that they have on me, I would have to request that info from them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMK Ultra
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/07
Posts: 70
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7547225 - 10/22/07 02:47 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I know that I'm responsible for my own health NOW, but at 16 as a patient at a mental hospital, I trusted that what I was being given was for my own good.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547228 - 10/22/07 02:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Ok ok, face it she won't provide evidence that you (or I) will buy.

Now this is enough arguing to derail the thread.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7547398 - 10/22/07 03:35 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

There have been plenty of meta-analyzes published in JAMA, BMJ, APA, etc, that have concluded antidepressant medication has no clinical value. If you cannot find this information, you're not looking very hard.

You have to look at the majority of research about psychiatric medication with skepticism, due to the fact that there attrition rates and blind procedures are generally terrible. This is something that cannot be avoided in this type of research and, unfortunately, makes it very easy to have favorable significance testing.

And clinical trials prove nothing.

Quote:

So the question is of course, what's so bad about increasing serotonin levels?




Serotonin surge and platelet aggregation comes to mind...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAndy21
Armchairanarchist

Registered: 01/01/06
Posts: 288
Last seen: 13 years, 3 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7547425 - 10/22/07 03:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I have nothing at all against drugs or medicine for that matter when it is properly undertaken. I have a problem with the way SSRI medication is handed out like candy in England (I cannot speak for America) as some kind of miracle cure all. My sister for example a number of years ago went to the doctor complaining of a general malaise and depressive symptoms, she was prescribed an SSRI treatment. The symptoms did not improve after several dosage changes, the drug was changed and changed again to no avail (with strange and frightening withdrawal symptoms). A few weeks back after years of no progress she went again to the doctor but found her regular doctor was away on vacation, instead she saw another doctor from the same clinic. This doctor decided to send my sister for some tests which revealed that she had an under active thyroid gland. After just a couple of weeks on the treatment for this condition the change in her mood is amazing she is weaning herself off the SSRI. A number of conditions are associated with depressive symptoms, thyroid problems are also frequent in our family. I have to ask why instead of performing some tests to rule out some of these possible causes of her symptoms the symptoms were treated as the disease and lots of money was wasted.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7547446 - 10/22/07 03:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

you should see the videos they show trying to advocate ECT...


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547476 - 10/22/07 04:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I don't know as much as I should about ECT, but from what I hear it is a great treatment for depression that has few side effects.

Of course it is disturbing to watch someone having a seizure, but that doesn't mean the treatment doesn't work or that the patient is being harmed.

I hear good things about transcranal magentic stimulation, too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7547740 - 10/22/07 05:15 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

they rarely talk about when shocking electricity through someone goes wrong.

man, it's downright frankensteinish


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7547774 - 10/22/07 05:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Ooooh sounds juicy... got any links? (The names of some journal articles would be friggin sweet.) I asked a professor about the possible side effects of ECT, but my question was brushed aside as "not important." :cuckoo:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7547917 - 10/22/07 05:37 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

here is a post from a thread long dead that is kind of my blanket statement to this thread.

Quote:

1) until 2001 some psychiatrists labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM III-R in 1987 as a mental disorder.... but not in China until 2001.
So here is just one crow the APA has had to eat. I often wonder how many homosexuals were drugged, detained and told that they were mentally ill during that time. Not only did they have to admit that they were dead wrong about it, it is also an admittance that their methods, classification, and even the procedure of classification of mental illness is inherently flawed.

2) Convulsive therapy was introduced in 1934 by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist Ladislas J. Meduna who, believing mistakenly that schizophrenia and epilepsy were antagonistic disorders, induced seizures with first camphor and then metrazol (cardiazol). Within three years metrazol convulsive therapy was being used worldwide.
over 70 years ago, one dumbass who thought himself a practitioner of science, induced seizures in people and it catches on world-wide use in three years..... this turned into the more commonly known "shock-therapy" which has been shown to cause memory loss and brain damage.
But, that is barbaric, right? no one does that anymore....... right?

3)In the USA, ECT machines are manufactured by two companies, Somatics, which is owned by psychiatrists Richard Abrams and Conrad Swartz, and MECTA. The Food and Drug Administration has classified the devices used to administer ECT as Class III medical devices.[6] Class III is the highest-risk class of medical devices. The risks of ECT, according to the FDA, include brain damage and memory loss.[7] In the UK the market for ECT machines was long monopolised by Ectron Ltd, although in recent years some hospitals have started using American machines. Ectron Ltd was set up by psychiatrist Robert Russell, who together with a colleague from the Three Counties Asylum, Bedfordshire, invented the Page-Russell technique of intensive ECT.

here is a little blurp about Mecta..


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.

"This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.

For the past 25 years, ECT patients were told by Sackeim, the nation's top ECT researcher, that the controversial treatment doesn't cause permanent amnesia and, in fact, improves memory and increases intelligence. Psychologist Sackeim also taught a generation of ECT practitioners that permanent amnesia from ECT is so rare that it could not be studied. He asserted that most people who said the treatment erased years of memory were mentally ill and thus not credible.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 3 million people have received ECT over the past generation. "Those patients who reported permanent adverse effects on cognition have now had their experiences validated," said Linda Andre, head of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, a national organization of ECT recipients.

Since the mid-1980s, Sackeim worked as a consultant to the ECT device manufacturer Mecta Corp. He never revealed his financial interest in ECT to NIMH, as required by federal law, and, until 2002, did not reveal it to New York officials as required by state law. Neuropsychopharmacology has endured negative publicity over its failure to disclose financial conflicts of journal authors, resulting in the editor's resignation and a promise to disclose such conflicts in the future; yet there is no disclosure of Sackeim's long-term relationship with Mecta, nor did Sackeim disclose his financial conflict when his NIMH grant was renewed to 2009 at approximately $500,000 per year.

The six-month study followed about 250 patients in New York City hospitals, an unusually large number; most ECT studies are based on 20 to 30 patients. Sackeim's previously published studies were short term, making it impossible to assess long-term effects. "However, in other contexts over the years -- court depositions, communications with mental health officials, and grant protocols -- Sackeim has claimed to follow up patients for as long as five years. This raises serious questions as to how long he has actually known of the existence and prevalence of permanent amnesia and why it wasn't revealed until now," Andre said.

Besides finding that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia, the study contradicts Sackeim's oft-published statements that ECT increases intelligence and that patients who report permanent adverse effects are mentally ill.

"The study is a stunning self-repudiation of a 25-year career," Andre said.

Committee for Truth in Psychiatry
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n1/pdf/1301180a.pdf



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



oh, and the other guy that makes shock machines....


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of patients who receive ECT . . . are well satisfied with the results and are hardly motivated to influence public opinion on the subject - they are too busy getting on with their lives. . ." -- from Richard Abrams' "Electroconvulsive Therapy"

When medical students learn about shock therapy, they turn to the only textbook on the subject: Electroconvulsive Therapy, published by Oxford University Press. Richard Abrams, a professor of psychiatry at the Chicago Medical School, writes that shock therapy is proven safe and effective for depression and other problems, even in children and the elderly.

He advises that shock should be considered as the first treatment given, not as the last resort. He concludes with an attack on doctors who criticize shock treatment and attaches a form to have patients sign when they consent to shock therapy.

But Abrams doesn't tell the medical students one thing: He owns Somatics Inc., one of the nation's two shock machine manufacturers.

He didn't tell his publisher, either.

"Wow," says Joan Bossert, executive editor of Oxford University Press. "I did not know that." She would have had him disclose that in the book's preface, she says. "I really wish he'd told us, but it doesn't take away from his expertise," she says. Neither did Abrams disclose his financial interest in the academic journal Psychiatric Clinics in September 1994, when he wrote an upbeat article on shock titled, "The Treatment That Will Not Die."

In some recent articles, Abrams disclosed that he's a "director" of Somatics. But readers weren't told that he is also president and owns the company with shock researcher Conrad Swartz, a University of South Carolina psychiatry professor.

Abrams says it's ridiculous to think his ownership of a shock machine company may create a conflict of interest. "Most advances in medical instruments and technology have come from practicing physicians putting (their) knowledge to work in building better equipment," he says. He says he thought Oxford University Press knew he owned Somatics. "The association is very well-known in the community," he says.

In a 1991 deposition, Abrams said Somatics provided half his income.

Abrams and Swartz started Somatics Inc., in Lake Bluff, Ill., in 1985. Somatics makes about half the USA's shock machines; MECTA Corp. of Lake Oswego, Ore., makes the rest.

Abrams wouldn't reveal company revenues or profits, but the Somatics Thymatron shock machine is used in about 500 hospitals nationwide and costs approximately $10,000. "It's a very small industry," Swartz says. "The sales of these machines don't compare with the sales of any one drug." Swartz says Somatics' profits are comparable to having an additional psychiatry practice. (The average psychiatrist made $131,300 in 1993.)

Swartz writes extensively on shock therapy, too, and also rarely discloses his Somatics ties.

For example, when a doctor wrote in Convulsive Therapy, a medical journal, that doctors could save money using sports mouth guards during shock treatment, Swartz wrote a letter attacking the idea. He did not disclose that Somatics sells specially designed mouth guards for $23 a dozen.

Abrams and Swartz should "absolutely, without a doubt, disclose their ownership in all their publications," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. They also should disclose it to patients on informed consent forms before shock treatment, Caplan says.

"True informed consent is not what the doctor thinks you should know, it's what a reasonable patient might want to know," he says.

Swartz calls this absurd.

"It's a nonissue. Every doctor who does ECT makes money, just as every doctor who prescribes drugs does," he says. "Patients know . . . and don't particularly care." Swartz says Somatics was founded because MECTA wasn't listening to psychiatrists who do shock therapy.

"I'm now able to improve machines. Who else can best advance ECT? Someone like me, who knows what they're doing," says Swartz, who has a Ph.D. in engineering as well as a medical degree. For his part, Abrams is the most quoted shock therapy researcher.

The American Psychiatric Association's 1990 task force report on how to practice shock therapy cites him more than any other expert. His 340-page textbook is often the sole source of information about shock therapy in general medical books and articles read by doctors and patients.

Abrams' textbook never mentions Somatics by name. But he describes new shock machine innovations found only on Somatics machines.

For example, his textbook reports that a charge "delivered over four to eight seconds will optimize the risk-benefit ratio for ECT and provide maximal clinical efficacy with minimal cognitive consequences."

Only one machine gives a four to eight second charge: the Somatics Thymatron DGx.

And Abrams sells it.



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



but these are isolated incidents...... right? surely a person could not say that every aspect of psychiatry is for financial gain.

4) The first distributor of Methadone: Eli Lily
here is a list of some people who have worked for the company:
Eli Lilly has a global reputation for attracting global leaders in the fields of health policy, management, and scientific research. Prominent former Lilly employees include:

Ernesto Bustamante, Peruvian scientist.
Mitch Daniels, current Governor of Indiana, former Hudson Institute executive, and former Director of Office of Management and Budget for President George W. Bush.
Roald Hoffmann, Nobel Prize-winning chemist.
Michael Johns, former White House speechwriter and Heritage Foundation policy analyst.
Claude H Nash, CEO, ViroPharma.
Peter Nicholas, co-founder of Boston Scientific.
Randall L. Tobias, former United States Director of Foreign Assistance and Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with the rank of Ambassador.
Prominent Lilly board members have included:

George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and Vice President of the United States of America.
Martin Feldstein, economist, Harvard University.
Kenneth Lay, former CEO, Enron (1986-2002).
William Verity Jr., former U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

but what does that prove?

look up zyprexa....

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a New York Times article published on December 17, 2006,[6] Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa, its best-selling medication for schizophrenia, according to hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers. These documents and e-mail messages were soon made publicly available as a location hidden Tor service[7], and then made available on the public Internet. Eli Lilly got a temporary restraining order from a US District Court signed on January 4, 2007 to stop the dissemination or downloading of Eli Lilly documents about Zyprexa, and this allowed them to get a few US-based websites to remove them; on January 8, 2007, Judge Jack B. Weinstein refused the Electronic Frontier Foundation's motion to stay his order[8]. The documents can now only be downloaded from public Internet sites outside the US.[9][10][11]These health risks include an increased risk for diabetes through Zyprexa's links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar. Zyprexa is Lilly’s top-selling drug, with sales of $4.2 billion last year.

The documents, given to The New York Times by Jim Gottstein, a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar — both known risk factors for diabetes. The Times of London also obtained copies of the documents and reported that as early as October 1998, Lilly considered the risk of drug-induced obesity to be a "top threat" to Zyprexa sales.[12] In another document, dated October 9, 2000, senior Lilly research physician Robert Baker noted that an academic advisory board he belonged to was "quite impressed by the magnitude of weight gain on olanzapine and implications for glucose."

Lilly’s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with doctors, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more. But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004. In 2006, Lilly paid $700 million to settle 8,000 lawsuits from people who said they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Thousands more suits are still pending.[13]

Lilly told its sales representatives to suggest that doctors prescribe Zyprexa to older patients with symptoms of dementia. One document states "dementia should be first message" for primary care doctors, since they "do not treat bipolar" or schizophrenia, but "do treat dementia." Three months after its launch, the Zyprexa campaign, called 'Viva Zyprexa', led to 49,000 new prescriptions. In 2002, the company changed the name of the primary care campaign to 'Zyprexa Limitless' and began to focus on people with mild bipolar disorder who had previously been diagnosed as depressed -- even though Zyprexa has been approved only for the treatment of mania in bipolar disorder, not depression.[14]

In 2002, British and Japanese regulatory agencies warned that Zyprexa may be linked to diabetes, but even after the FDA issued a similar warning in 2003, Lilly did not publicly disclose their own findings.

Eli Lilly agreed on January 4, 2007 to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who claim they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996.[15]




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



manufactured by Eli Lily. Maybe if I have more time I will go into more detail regarding the crimes of this pharm corp as well as Merck and others.

5)DSM. Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.

Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560.html
here is the PDF.... http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF

so the very people who are classifying mental disorders are the ones with financial ties to the companies that are making the "cures" for the mental disorders......

not to mention that more than 50% of the people on the advisory panel regarding the hidden studies of Vioxx had financial ties to the company that makes Vioxx! I wish I could get a jury of my best friends too!.

6) off-label usage.
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for a purpose outside the scope of the drug's approved label, most often concerning the drug's indication. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires numerous clinical trials to prove a drug's safety and efficacy in treating a given disease or condition. If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert. However, once the FDA approves a drug for prescription use, they do not attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, and so the physician makes decisions based on her or his best judgment. It is entirely legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label. Exceptions to this are certain controlled substances, such as opiates, which cannot be legally prescribed except for approved purposes (at least in the U.S.). In Australia, amphetamines are included in these drugs which cannot be prescribed off-label.

whats wrong with that? its legal.... right?

well, it is illegal for drug companies to promote and advertise their drugs for off label usage. But what seriously irks me is that doctors are not forced to tell patients that the drug they are prescribed is not reccommended for the intended use.

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.


I really could go on all day..... any maybe tommorrow I will fill another 20 pages of credible information regarding why psychiatry is quite possibly the most creul practice on the face of this earth.... but for now, just mull some of this over.
I doubt many will even read more than a few paragraphs.






I find it funny that anyone could think ECT could have un-entangled scientific findings.

Let me shock the everloving shit out of you and eventually I will get you to agree that I have purple monkeys dancing on the tip of my cock.

basically, every single shock therapy patient is shocked until they are "cured" which means that they will eventually break down and say "You're right! im cured!, please stop shocking the fuck out of me!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7549243 - 10/22/07 09:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

for once we agree on something


man ECT is WHACK bro.


It's just experimental therapy

"we don't know how it works and we've killed people doing it, but it seems to change people so maybe it's good?"


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerodfarva
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=====-----=-=-=-=-I
Male


Registered: 07/31/07
Posts: 4,982
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7549272 - 10/22/07 09:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Aparently i shouldnt have flamed , and just pwned this thread with intellegent rebuttal, but instead i am just going to agree/go with everything crystal G says and call it a day. sorry for being a dick (myself.)  :thumbup:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7549468 - 10/22/07 10:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I PM'd Ranke and asked that he make a response to this thread and hopefully, my post.

what I hate is that I go into these in-depth, very analytical discussions that have cited sources and very compelling arguments.... then no one responds.... and two weeks later, the exact same thread is saying the exact same thing.... and it just goes in a circle like that.
which is why I have stopped trying to type up these long posts and just started quoting myself from other threads.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7549983 - 10/23/07 05:39 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.

"This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.

For the past 25 years, ECT patients were told by Sackeim, the nation's top ECT researcher, that the controversial treatment doesn't cause permanent amnesia and, in fact, improves memory and increases intelligence. Psychologist Sackeim also taught a generation of ECT practitioners that permanent amnesia from ECT is so rare that it could not be studied. He asserted that most people who said the treatment erased years of memory were mentally ill and thus not credible.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 3 million people have received ECT over the past generation. "Those patients who reported permanent adverse effects on cognition have now had their experiences validated," said Linda Andre, head of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, a national organization of ECT recipients.

Since the mid-1980s, Sackeim worked as a consultant to the ECT device manufacturer Mecta Corp. He never revealed his financial interest in ECT to NIMH, as required by federal law, and, until 2002, did not reveal it to New York officials as required by state law. Neuropsychopharmacology has endured negative publicity over its failure to disclose financial conflicts of journal authors, resulting in the editor's resignation and a promise to disclose such conflicts in the future; yet there is no disclosure of Sackeim's long-term relationship with Mecta, nor did Sackeim disclose his financial conflict when his NIMH grant was renewed to 2009 at approximately $500,000 per year.

The six-month study followed about 250 patients in New York City hospitals, an unusually large number; most ECT studies are based on 20 to 30 patients. Sackeim's previously published studies were short term, making it impossible to assess long-term effects. "However, in other contexts over the years -- court depositions, communications with mental health officials, and grant protocols -- Sackeim has claimed to follow up patients for as long as five years. This raises serious questions as to how long he has actually known of the existence and prevalence of permanent amnesia and why it wasn't revealed until now," Andre said.

Besides finding that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia, the study contradicts Sackeim's oft-published statements that ECT increases intelligence and that patients who report permanent adverse effects are mentally ill.

"The study is a stunning self-repudiation of a 25-year career," Andre said.

Committee for Truth in Psychiatry
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n1/pdf/1301180a.pdf








And just out of curiosity, did you read the actual study?

This was a study done across 7 different hospitals, using very different ECT techniques, offering no placebo group, and in fact, demonstrated that many cognitive parameters were improved at 6 months.

And this is a perfect example of how a biased source such as "truth in psychiatry" can interpret a report however they want.

By nature, most newspaper reports are going to print articles which are sensationalized and dramatic. This is the one of the first times you've included an actual study, rather than a newspaper report starting with "According to some report.....".


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Edited by badchad (10/23/07 08:20 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7550557 - 10/23/07 11:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


6) off-label usage.
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for a purpose outside the scope of the drug's approved label, most often concerning the drug's indication. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires numerous clinical trials to prove a drug's safety and efficacy in treating a given disease or condition. If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert. However, once the FDA approves a drug for prescription use, they do not attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, and so the physician makes decisions based on her or his best judgment. It is entirely legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label. Exceptions to this are certain controlled substances, such as opiates, which cannot be legally prescribed except for approved purposes (at least in the U.S.). In Australia, amphetamines are included in these drugs which cannot be prescribed off-label.

whats wrong with that? its legal.... right?

well, it is illegal for drug companies to promote and advertise their drugs for off label usage. But what seriously irks me is that doctors are not forced to tell patients that the drug they are prescribed is not reccommended for the intended use.





this is also a pretty big misinterpretation on your part

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.

You're also forgetting that in many drugs, which have multiple beneficial mechanisms, are used as off-label prescriptions simply because the given medical indication doesn't point to the drug's original purpose....And in many cases, work BETTER than the intended use of the drug.

Go look up the following drugs:

Verapamil, disopyramide, phenylephrine, fludrocortisone, amiodarone, ipratropium...


Edited by LiquidSmoke (10/23/07 12:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: badchad]
    #7551360 - 10/23/07 03:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

badchad said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.

"This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.

For the past 25 years, ECT patients were told by Sackeim, the nation's top ECT researcher, that the controversial treatment doesn't cause permanent amnesia and, in fact, improves memory and increases intelligence. Psychologist Sackeim also taught a generation of ECT practitioners that permanent amnesia from ECT is so rare that it could not be studied. He asserted that most people who said the treatment erased years of memory were mentally ill and thus not credible.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 3 million people have received ECT over the past generation. "Those patients who reported permanent adverse effects on cognition have now had their experiences validated," said Linda Andre, head of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, a national organization of ECT recipients.

Since the mid-1980s, Sackeim worked as a consultant to the ECT device manufacturer Mecta Corp. He never revealed his financial interest in ECT to NIMH, as required by federal law, and, until 2002, did not reveal it to New York officials as required by state law. Neuropsychopharmacology has endured negative publicity over its failure to disclose financial conflicts of journal authors, resulting in the editor's resignation and a promise to disclose such conflicts in the future; yet there is no disclosure of Sackeim's long-term relationship with Mecta, nor did Sackeim disclose his financial conflict when his NIMH grant was renewed to 2009 at approximately $500,000 per year.

The six-month study followed about 250 patients in New York City hospitals, an unusually large number; most ECT studies are based on 20 to 30 patients. Sackeim's previously published studies were short term, making it impossible to assess long-term effects. "However, in other contexts over the years -- court depositions, communications with mental health officials, and grant protocols -- Sackeim has claimed to follow up patients for as long as five years. This raises serious questions as to how long he has actually known of the existence and prevalence of permanent amnesia and why it wasn't revealed until now," Andre said.

Besides finding that ECT routinely causes substantial and permanent amnesia, the study contradicts Sackeim's oft-published statements that ECT increases intelligence and that patients who report permanent adverse effects are mentally ill.

"The study is a stunning self-repudiation of a 25-year career," Andre said.

Committee for Truth in Psychiatry
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n1/pdf/1301180a.pdf








And just out of curiosity, did you read the actual study?

This was a study done across 7 different hospitals, using very different ECT techniques, offering no placebo group, and in fact, demonstrated that many cognitive parameters were improved at 6 months.

And this is a perfect example of how a biased source such as "truth in psychiatry" can interpret a report however they want.

By nature, most newspaper reports are going to print articles which are sensationalized and dramatic. This is the one of the first times you've included an actual study, rather than a newspaper report starting with "According to some report.....".




ok, I think you need to re-read the article. Because they had a much larger group than sackheim ever did. If you read it said that sackheim based his professional findings on studies that were too short term to be able to assess long term effects.
Also, how exactly is someone supposed to go about using placebo with ECT? how do you "fake" shock someone?
I think it is funny how you, as well as sackeim, tries to invalidate the complaints of thousands of ECT patients who complain of poor cognition skills and memory loss as being "just making that shit up, because they are crazy".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7551443 - 10/23/07 03:41 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:


6) off-label usage.
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for a purpose outside the scope of the drug's approved label, most often concerning the drug's indication. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires numerous clinical trials to prove a drug's safety and efficacy in treating a given disease or condition. If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert. However, once the FDA approves a drug for prescription use, they do not attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, and so the physician makes decisions based on her or his best judgment. It is entirely legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label. Exceptions to this are certain controlled substances, such as opiates, which cannot be legally prescribed except for approved purposes (at least in the U.S.). In Australia, amphetamines are included in these drugs which cannot be prescribed off-label.

whats wrong with that? its legal.... right?

well, it is illegal for drug companies to promote and advertise their drugs for off label usage. But what seriously irks me is that doctors are not forced to tell patients that the drug they are prescribed is not reccommended for the intended use.





this is also a pretty big misinterpretation on your part

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.

You're also forgetting that in many drugs, which have multiple beneficial mechanisms, are used as off-label prescriptions simply because the given medical indication doesn't point to the drug's original purpose....And in many cases, work BETTER than the intended use of the drug.

Go look up the following drugs:

Verapamil, disopyramide, phenylephrine, fludrocortisone, amiodarone, ipratropium...




I dont see how I am misinterpreting this. Maybe you mean that I am not using your optimism on the subject.
Drugs are regulated and approved based on the findings of the drug studies. If I have a drug that was designed for regulating blood pressure, and find that it also help hemophiliacs clot..... which is easier to get it passed by the FDA?
Here we have millions of dollars riding on this drug being passed.... do we take the route that is easier, or harder to prove efficacy and safety?
Then , with no disclosed findings upon the intended purpose of the drug, we tell doctors that it works really well for regulating blood pressure.
It is kind of like designing a gun, it is designed to shoot a bullet up to a mile with a .01% margin of error, but it might be considered too dangerous, or malicious, or whatever to be allowed to be sold on the market..... so then, we decide to sell it as a paperweight. Yeah, we can get it passed as a paperweight!
so then, when people start buying these very expensive paperweights, and people start getting shot and killed with these paperweights.... my gun company says "hey, you know, we never intended for these things to shoot bullets, they were just supposed to keep the paper from being blown away".

doctors arent forced to tell you that the drug they are prescribing you is in fact off-label usage. You arent told that you are a guinea pig.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7551570 - 10/23/07 04:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Maybe in an hour or so I will have more time to address both of your posts more in-depth... especially, the off-label use.

Quote:

A recent USA Today sponsored review of the FDA database from 2000 to 2004 found at least 45 deaths in children under 18 with atypical antipsychotics listed as the "primary suspect," and 1,328 reports of other serious side effects, some life-threatening.

Atypical antipsychotics are a relatively new class of drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. None of the drugs, including Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon, are approved for children, but doctors continue to prescribe the drugs off-label for unapproved uses.

The FDA's adverse event reporting system is known to capture only between 1% to 10% of side effects and deaths, which means the true numbers are actually much higher.

Among the 45 deaths, discussed in the May 2, 2006, USA article, at least six were related to diabetes, and other causes ranged from heart and pulmonary problems to choking, liver failure and suicide.

An 8-year-old boy died of cardiac arrest. A 15-year-old boy died of an overdose and a 13-year-old girl experienced diabetic ketoacidosis, a deficiency of insulin. The youngest child was 4, with symptoms that indicated diabetes complications.

The most common adverse reactions reported were:


A condition known as dystonia, which produces involuntary, and often painful muscle spasms, was the most common side effect with 103 cases.


Tremors, weight gain, sedation, and other neurological effects with symptoms that varied from slight twitching to full-blown body jerking.


The neuroleptic malignant syndrome showed up in 41 children, and was the most troubling side effect, according to child psychiatrist Joseph Penn, of Bradley Hospital and Brown University School of Medicine, because it can kill within 24 hours.
Even thought the package inserts for atypicals say their safety and effectiveness with children have not been established, a skyrocketing number of prescriptions are being written for children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder or other behavioral problems, according to a study in the March-April 2006, edition of the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics.

This study found that the number of children prescribed antipsychotic drugs had increased five-fold between 1995 and 2002, to an estimated 2.5 million, which represents an increase from 8.6 for every 1,000 children in the mid-1990s, to nearly 40 in every of 1,000 in 2002.

The researchers analyzed data on children with an average age of 13, who were involved in annual national health surveys involving prescriptions issued during 119,752 doctor visits, and determined that over half of the prescriptions were written for attention deficit or other non-psychotic conditions.

The findings are troublesome "because it looks like these medications are being used for large numbers of children in a setting where we don't know if they work,"said the study's lead author, Dr William Cooper, a pediatrician at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital in Nashville, TN.

Dr Cooper and his colleagues were among the first to investigate the increase in antipsychotic use with children and teens, in a study published in the summer of 2004, that reported that prescriptions for atypicals had doubled among Tennessee children on Medicaid between 1996 and 2001.

Back then they found that 43% of prescriptions were written for ADHD, or a related disorder as the primary diagnosis, and 14% were written for bipolar disorder, and 9% for schizophrenia or other psychotic conditions.


In a later nationwide study, researchers concluded that 6 million prescriptions for atypicals were written for children between 1995 and 2002, and again found that a large percentage of the prescriptions were written with ADHD as the primary diagnosis.

"The bottom line is that we are seeing a huge increase in the use of these medications among children, and we are not sure if they work or if they are safe," Cooper told WebMD. [b"These drugs have not been tested for many of the indications that they are being used for."

Even more disturbing finding was recently reported in a study led by Oregon Health & Science University professor, David Pollack, that revealed that 246 preschool children under the age of 5, who were enrolled in the state-sponsored Medicaid program, were receiving antipsychotic or antidepressant medications. (on a personal edited side note, I would love to hear how someone of you justify this type of behaviour.... 5 year olds.)

The review of Medicaid records, reported in the April 2006, Oregon Health News, found that 41% of the preschoolers were prescribed psychiatric drugs for ADD.

Experts say the prospect of children under 5, receiving psychiatric drugs intended for adults is alarming. Also alarming was the finding that about 50% of the prescriptions were written by primary care providers and not psychiatrists.

The study was a collaboration by Oregon's department of human services, Medicaid program, and the Oregon State University College of Pharmacy.

An equally disturbing report was published in the April 25, 2005, Columbus Dispatch on an investigation of state Medicaid records that found 18 babies ranging from newborn to 3 years-old in Ohio had been prescribed antipsychotic drugs in July 2004.

In another analysis of privately insured children, by the pharmacy benefit manager, Medco Health Solutions, conducted for USA Today, the rate of children, 19 and under, with at least one atypical prescription had increased 80% in the four years from 2001 to 2005. This analysis did not include any children covered by government programs like Medicaid.

The study noted that atypical use among girls was much greater than with boys. The number of girls taking the drugs grew 103% from 2001 to 2005, compared to a 61% increase with boys.

The rate of children treated with atypicals "is growing dramatically faster than the rate for adults," said Robert Epstein, chief medical officer for Medco, in a press release.

"Doctors need to be judicious when prescribing antipsychotic drugs to children," Epstein warned. "There is evidence that the risk of diabetes and metabolic disorders from using atypical antipsychotics could be much more severe for pediatric patients than adults," he said.

"The use of these drugs," Dr Epstein warned, "can have the pediatric patient trading a behavioral condition for a lifelong metabolic condition that can lead to significant health complications."

Critics say the increased use of atypicals with children is most troubling because the dangers associated with the drugs, in adults and children, has been evident in the scientific literature since before they came on the market.

In the book, Mad In America, award winning author, Robert Whitaker, reports that one out of every 145 subjects who entered clinical trials for Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel, and Serdolect died. By using the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to FDA data on the drug trials for the atypicals he determined:
One in every 145 patients died but the deaths were not mentioned in the scientific literature.



The trials were structured to favor the atypicals and most of the reports were discounted by the FDA as being biased.


One in every thirty-five patients in Risperdal trials experienced a serious adverse event, defined by the FDA as a life threatening or one that required hospitalization.


The atypicals did not demonstrate superior effectiveness or safety over the older antipsychotics.
In addition, persons on atypicals have been found to commit suicide 2 to five times more often than schizophrenics in general. According to Whitaker, "researchers in Ireland reported in 2003 that since the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, the death rate among people with schizophrenia has doubled."

For instance, in October 2004, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Children's Center reported that atypicals were found to trigger insulin resistance in children, a condition that increases the risk of developing type-2 diabetes and heart disease later in life.

Results of the study were presented at October 20, 2004, annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Washington, DC.

In this study, the research team evaluated 11 children, some overweight and others obese, who gained significant amounts of weight while taking the drugs. Weight gain is a common side effect of the drugs, and is one of the factors that can contribute to insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance is said to occur when muscle, fat, and liver cells do not properly use insulin, which is produced by the pancreas to help cells absorb glucose and provide energy.

When resistance occurs, the pancreas tries to keep up with the demand for insulin by producing more until it eventually cannot keep up with the body's need for insulin, and then excess glucose builds up in the bloodstream which can lead to an increased risk of developing type-2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

All six children in the study who were on moderate or high doses of one of the atypicals, and three out of 5 children who were on low doses, developed symptoms of insulin resistance.

The evidence in the trial indicating the condition included hypertension, high levels of triglycerides, increased levels of protein in the urine, and low levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol.

"The insulin resistance seen in these children was greater than what would be expected from weight gain alone, suggesting there is a factor distinct from excess weight that directly induces insulin resistance," according to the study's lead author, Mark Riddle, MD, director of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Children's Center.

Basically to find out how the new atypicals worked in comparison to each other and to determine whether the drugs were worth the cost, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) decided to fund an 18 month study titled, Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE).

(SERIOUS HIGHLIGHT HERE!)The results of the study were published in the September 22, 2005, New England Journal of Medicine and revealed that the drugs were barely more effective than no drugs at all.

The study enrolled 1,500 schizophrenic patients from 27 medical centers across the US. Neither the patients nor the doctors knew whether a patient was getting Zyprexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Geodon, or Trilafon.

The scientists included Trilafon to represent the older generation of antipsychotic drugs.

$44 million later, the CATIE report concluded that the new atypicals "have no substantial advantage" over the old ones.

While Zyprexa turned out to be the most effective, it also had the greatest number of side effects.

The second most effective drug was Trilafon which stunned researchers. "The biggest surprise was that the oldest medication was comparable to at least three of the new medications and not much worse than Zyprexa," said Dr Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, who led the study.

Scientists involved in designing the study debated on whether to even include Trilafon, according to researcher, Robert Rosenheck, MD. "Many of us thought the question was decided and the old drugs were of no value," he said in a news conference.

Researcher, Robert Freedman, MD from the University of Colorado, published an editorial to accompany the report in the NEJM.

"No drug provided the majority of patients a treatment that lasted the full 18 months of the study," he wrote. "Only 36% of the patients receiving the most effective drug completed the trial," Dr Freedman said.

In the end, 74% of patients elected to seek some other treatment rather than stay on their assigned medication. "The results could be viewed as discouraging," Dr Freedman wrote.

In what outraged critics are calling a blatant tax dollar funded marketing scheme, on May 1, 2006, the New York Times, revealed that "psychiatric researchers have been experimenting with a bold and controversial treatment strategy: they are prescribing drugs to young people at risk for schizophrenia who have not yet developed the full-blown disorder."

The findings from the trial, published in the May 2006 American Journal of Psychiatry, "suggest that this preventive approach is more difficult to put into effect - and more treacherous - than scientists had hoped," the NYTs says.

The study was co-funded by Eli Lilly and the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 60 patients, mostly adolescents, who supposedly scored high on a scale that assesses the risk for psychosis. The scale rates the severity of over a dozen symptoms, that include categories such as grandiosity, suspiciousness, and bizarre thoughts.

From 20 to 45% of people who score high will go on to develop full-blown psychosis, in which the symptoms become extreme, researchers claim.

The trail subjects were divided into 2 groups, with one group receiving drugs and the other placebos.

In the first year of what was slated to be a 2-year trial, five of the 31 patients on medication developed full-blown psychosis, compared to 11 of the 29 subject on placebos.

However, by the end of the first year, more than two-thirds of the patients had quit, making it impossible to interpret any differences between the 2 groups.

The report said that some subjects dropped out without explaining why; others moved; and 10 quit because they either felt the drug was not helping, could not make the appointments or did not like the side effects.

The only undisputable result was that patients taking medication gained an average of 20 pounds, once again verifying a side effect that has been documented for 15 years.

The prices charged for these drugs are over the top and their increased use, along with a few other types of psychiatric drugs, is in large part responsible for the escalating prescription drug costs.

The Medco Health Solution study determined that since 2001, antipsychotic costs for children have increased 196%, or nearly tripled, due to the increase in prescriptions written and the use of the new atypicals with children 97% of the time, rather than the older drugs that sell for only a fraction of prices charged for atypicals

Overall, in 2002, the total sales of antypicals to patients of all ages reached $6.4 billion, making them the fourth-highest-selling class of drugs in the US, according to IMS Health, a company that tracks drug sales.

Two years later in 2004, total sales had jumped more than $2 billion to $8.8 billion, with $2.4 billion of that amount paid by state Medicaid funds, according to the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones Magazine.

Schizophrenia drugs account for the biggest share of the $39 billion that states spend each year on prescription drugs.

On October 23, 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that nationwide, "Medicaid programs purchase an estimated 60 to 75 percent of antipsychotic drugs."

The highest expenditure for California's Medicaid, was Zyprexa at close to $250 million for the year that ended June 2005. Risperdal and Seroquel, ranked 2nd and 4th in the list of high cost drugs funded by Medicaid.

The costliest per month is Zyprexa, at an average cost of $399.26, according to the California Department of Health Services.

In 2002, the Kentucky Medicaid program ended up with a $230 million deficit and the $36 million bill for Zyprexa was the state's largest per drug expense.

Judging by third quarter earning reports for 2005, fifteen years of negative studies have had no effect on sales that show:


Seroquel, $706 million, up 32%

Abilify, $206 million, up 58%

Geodon, $148 million, up 18%

Zyprexa, $1.035 billion, up 1%
In a disgusting twist of fate, Zyprexa's maker, Eli Lilly's diabetes drugs earned $653 million, up 13% when Zyprexa has consistently been found to be most likely drug to cause weight gain and high blood sugar leading to diabetes.

Risperdal is still Johnson & Johnson's top-selling drug, and had sales of $916 million in the 3rd quarter, up 23% from the same period a year earlier.

This great news for J&J but translates into 916 fatalities for Risperdal patients, according to estimates by Allen Jones, a former investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, who says, "my best effort at correlating dollars spent with deaths from drug side effects suggests that people may be dying from side effects from the schizophrenia drugs alone at the rate of at least one death for each one million dollars spent on these drugs."

"The actual numbers may reflect a much higher death rate," he warns.





http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/antipsychotics


Edited by YawningAnus (10/23/07 05:45 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7551945 - 10/23/07 05:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
lol, i still dont understand where the lie is, you continue accusing (repetitiously i might add) but in reality youre pulling strings and gathering nothing. If you're so sure it's a bold-faced lie, then fucking call me out on it already. Come on, quit repeating yourself. Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it credible or true, lol.





you've been trying so hard to get at it, why would you be unless you knew you WERE lying?


uhhh...because you're LYING?


What's funny is that someone who had actually experienced such similar things would be able to point out what came out of that creative imagination of yours.




Okay, I somehow missed this completely illogical statement and couldn't resist from responding.

This argument is a fallacy. If somebody vehemently accuses me of being something that puts my reputation and credibility at stake, of course I am going to defend myself to put such rumors to a stop.

Get a clue: If somebody accuses you of stealing--when you clearly didn’t--wouldn’t you attempt to defend yourself? If somebody labels you a homo when you obviously are not, wouldn’t you at the very least, deny it?

So please, cut the crap unless you have a valid point to make.


Anyways, back to mental health:
Quote:

Most of the abuse that occurs in mental institutions involve seclusion and restraints, or restraining a patient who is deemed "violent". Why does such abuse occur? Well, studies show that most mental health care workers, sometimes called orderlies, are over-worked and underpaid. In almost every state across the nation, most mental health caretakers are paid minimum wage and receive no benefits. The also receive little or no training, outside of required courses on how to properly restrain a person.

One would think that mental health workers would receive higher pay and more training, given the fact that they are taking people's lives into their hands each time they go to work. Unfortunately, the burnout rate for mental health workers is high, so a lot of hospitals do not want to invest a lot of time or money in the workers they hire. This results in more patients being locked up instead of treated as they should be. The hospitals are ill-equip to deal with what is considered a "special population". With some hospitals, it seems like no one cares about the fact that they have peoples' lives placed in their hands.

Concerns of administrative duties and funding drown out necessary concerns for the patients themselves.
At press time, no national standards exist for the use of restraints, nor is there a comprehensive reporting system in place for incidents that occur from the misuse of seclusion and restraints. Due to this, it is difficult to determine the nature or the number of abusive incidents within hospitals, without going to each and every facility and researching their individual records. Organizations like the National Alliance For The Mentally Ill have special task forces in place to research abuse in hospitals, and have report cards on the most widely known institutions. You can find NAMI's report card at , as well as more resources for making sure you or your loved ones receive the best care from reputable facilities with good track records. A recent investigation conducted by the Hartford Courand exposed the deaths of 142 patients in just one hospital alone; this is the kind of hospital one would want to avoid at all costs. If it is at all possible, research the records of a psychiatric or mental health facility prior to admittance. During an emergency or crisis situation, county hospitals are usually good for the initial intake and assessment process; it is the long-term care facilities one must concern themselves with.




More to be read here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mental_health_advocacy/35970

http://www.mental-health-abuse.org/realCrisis14.html

If you experience any psychiatric abuse, you can file a complaint to the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights (CCHR).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7552017 - 10/23/07 05:56 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

regarding ECT....

Quote:

Can ECT Permanently Harm the Brain?
Donald I. Templer and David M. Veleber
Clinical Neuropsychology (1982) 4(2): 62-66

Literature relevant to the question of whether ECT permanently injures the brain was reviewed. Similar histological findings of epileptics and patients who had received ECT were discussed. Experimental research with animals seems to have demonstrated both reversible and nonreversible pathology. Psychological test findings, even when attempting to control for possible pre-ECT differences, seem to suggest some permanent cognitive deficit. Reports of spontaneous seizures long after ECT would appear to point to permanent brain changes. Human brain autopsies sometimes indicate and sometimes do not indicate lasting effects. It was concluded that vast individual differences are salient, that massive damage in the typical ECT patient is unlikely, and that irreversible changes probably do occur in some patients.

This review centers around five areas germane to the question of whether electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent brain pathology. Relatively indirect evidence is provided by two of these areas, the brain condition of epileptics and the examination of animal brains after experimental ECT. The other three areas are psychological testing findings with history of many ECTs, spontaneous seizures, and autopsy findings. The review does not concern the extensive literature that shows that ECT temporarily impairs cognitive functioning. Such literature eventually shows impairment beginning with the first ECT and becoming progressively worse with succeeding treatments. Improvement occurs following the course of ECT, sometimes with the tested functioning actually being higher than the pretreatment level ­ which is presumed to have been impaired by psychopathology such as thought disorder and depression. Reviews of this literature can be found elsewhere (American Psychiatric Association, 1978; Campbell, 1961; Dornbush, 1972; Dornbush and Williams, 1974; Harper and Wiens, 1975), as can reviews indicating that the unilateral ECT (applied to the right side) in increasing usage in recent years causes less impairment than bilateral ECT (American Psychiatric Association, 1978; d'Elia, 1974; Hurwitz, 1974; Zamora and Kaelbing, 1965). This literature is really not very relevant to the central issue of our review. It has never been disputed that cognitive impairment occurs after ECT. Even the most fervent and excathedra defenders acknowledge that "temporary" impairment occurs. It is the issue of permanency that has been controversial.

THE BRAINS OF EPILEPTICS

It would seem that if an epileptic grand mal seizure produces permanent brain changes, then an electrically induced convulsion should also do so. In fact, inspecting the evidence with respect to epileptics may provide us with a conservative perspective in regard to ECT since the latter could produce damage from the externally applied electrical current as well as from the seizure. Experimental research with animals has shown that the electric shocks (not to the head) produce more deleterious effects in the central nervous system than any other locality or system of the body. More pertinent are the studies of Small (1974) and of Laurell (1970) that found less memory impairment after inhalant induced convulsions than ECT. And, Levy, Serota and Grinker (1942) reported less EEG abnormality and intellectual impairment with pharmacologically induced convulsions. Further argument provided by Friedberg (1977) is the case (Larsen and Vraa-Jensen, l953) of a man who had been given four ECTs, but did not convulse. When he died three days later, a subarachnoid hemorrhage was found in the upper part of the left motor region at the site where an electrode had been applied.

A number of post-mortem reports on epileptics, as reviewed by Meldrum, Horton, and Brierley (1974) have indicated neuronal loss and gliosis, especially in the hippocampus and temporal lobe. However, as Meldrum et al. pointed out, on the basis of these post-mortem reports, one does not know whether the damage was caused by the seizures or whether both were caused by a third factor intrinsic to the epilepsy. To clarify this issue, Meldrum et al. pharmacologically induced seizures in baboons and found cell changes that corresponded to those in human epileptics.

Gastaut and Gastaut (1976) demonstrated through brain scans that in seven of 20 cases status epilepticus produced brain atrophy. They reasoned that "Since the edema and the atrophy were unilateral or bilateral and related to the localization of the convulsions (unilateral or bilateral chronic seizures), the conclusion can be drawn that the atrophic process depends upon the epileptic process and not on the cause of the status."

A common finding in epileptics and ECT patients is noteworthy. Norman (1964) stated that it is not uncommon to find at autopsy both old and recent lesions in the brains of epileptics. Alpers and Hughes (1942) reported old and recent brain lesions associated with different series of ECT.

ANIMAL BRAINS

There are a number of articles concerning the application of ECT and subsequent brain examination in animals. In the 15 study review of Hartelius (1952), 13 of the 15 reported pathological findings that were vascular, glial or neurocytological, or (as was generally the case) in two or three of these domains. However, as Hartelius pointed out, inferences of these studies tended to be conflicting because of different methods used and because of deficient controls. The research that Hartelius himself carried out was unquestionably the outstanding study in the area with respect to methodological sophistication and rigor. Hartelius employed 47 cats; 31 receiving ECT, and 16 being control animals. To prevent artifacts associated with the sacrificing of the animals, the cerebrums were removed under anesthesia while the animals were still alive. Brain examinations were conducted blindly with respect to ECT vs. control of subject. On a number of different vascular, glial, and neuronal variables, the ECT animals were significantly differentiated from the controls. The animals that had 11-16 ECTs had significantly greater pathology than the animals that had received four ECTs. Most of the significant differences with respect to reversible type changes. However, some of the significant differences pertained to clearly irreversible changes such as shadow cells and neuronophagia.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST FINDINGS WITH HISTORY OF MANY ECTS

There have been several studies regarding the administration of psychological tests to patients with a history of many ECTs. Unfortunately, all were not well controlled. Rabin (1948) administered the Rorschach to six chronic schizophrenics with a history of from 110 to 234 ECTs. Three patients had 6, two had 4, and one had 2 Piotrowski signs. (Piotrowski regards five or more as indicating organicity.) However, control subjects were not employed. Perlson (1945) reported the case of a 27-year-old schizophrenic with a history of 152 ECTs and 94 Metrozol convulsions. At age 12 he received an IQ of 130 on the Stanford Achievement Test; at age 14 an IQ of 110 on an unspecified general intelligence test. At the time of the case study, he scored at the 71st percentile on the Otis, at the 65th percentile on the American Council on Educational Psychological Examination, at the 77th percentile on the Ohio State Psychological Examination, at the 95th percentile for engineering freshman on the Bennett Test of Mechanical Comprehension, at the 20th percentile on engineering senior norms and at the 55th percentile on liberal arts students' norm on a special perception test. These facts led Perlson to conclude that convulsive therapy does not lead to intellectual deterioration. A more appropriate inference would be that, because of the different tests of different types and levels and norms given at different ages in one patient, no inference whatsoever is justified.

There are two studies that provide more methodological sophistication than the above described articles. Goldman, Gomer, and Templer (1972) administered the Bender-Gestalt and the Benton Visual Retention Test to schizophrenics in a VA hospital. Twenty had a past history of from 50 to 219 ECTs and 20 had no history of ECT. The ECT patients did significantly worse on both instruments. Furthermore, within the ECT groups there were significant inverse correlations between performance on these tests and number of ECTs received. However, the authors acknowledged that ECT-caused brain damage could not be conclusively inferred because of the possibility that the ECT patients were more psychiatrically disturbed and for this reason received the treatment. (Schizophrenics tend to do poorly on tests of organicity.) In a subsequent study aimed at ruling out this possibility, Templer, Ruff, and Armstrong (1973) administered the Bender-Gestalt, the Benton, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale to 22 state hospital schizophrenics who had a past history of from 40 to 263 ECTs and to 22 control schizophrenics. The ECT patients were significantly inferior on all three tests. However, the ECT patients were found to be more psychotic. Nevertheless, with degree of psychosis controlled for, the performance of the ECT patients was still significantly inferior on the Bender-Gestalt, although not significantly so on the other two tests.

SPONTANEOUS SEIZURES

It would appear that if seizures that were not previously evidenced appeared after ECT and persisted, permanent brain pathology must be inferred. There have been numerous cases of post-ECT spontaneous seizures reported in the literature and briefly reviewed by Blumenthal (1955, Pacella and Barrera (1945), and Karliner (1956). It appears that in the majority of cases the seizures do not persist indefinitely, although an exact perspective is difficult to obtain because of anticonvulsant medication employed and the limited follow-up information. another difficulty is, in all cases, definitively tracing the etiology to the ECT, since spontaneous seizures develop in only a very small proportion of patients given this treatment. Nevertheless, the composite of relevant literature does indicate that, at least in some patients, no evidence of seizure potential existed before treatment and post-ECT seizures persist for years.

An article that is one of the most systematic and representative in terms of findings is that of Blumenthal (1955) who reported on 12 schizophrenic patients in one hospital who developed post-ECT convulsions. Six of the patients had previous EEGs with four of them being normal, one clearly abnormal, and one mildly abnormal. The patients averaged 72 ECTs and 12 spontaneous seizures. The time from last treatment to first spontaneous seizure ranged from 12 hours to 11 months with an average of 2 and 1/2 months. The total duration of spontaneous seizures in the study period ranged from 1 day to 3 and 1/2 years with an average of 1 year. Following the onset of seizures, 8 of the 12 patients were found to have a clearly abnormal, and 1 a mildly abnormal EEG.

Mosovich and Katzenelbogen (1948) reported that 20 of their 82 patients had convulsive pattern cerebral dysrhythmia 10 months post ECT. None had such in their pre-treatment EEG. Nine (15%) of the 60 patients who had 3 to 15 treatments, and 11(50%) of the 22 patients who had from 16 to 42 treatments had this 10 month posttreatment dysrhythmia.

HUMAN BRAIN AUTOPSY REPORTS

In the 1940s and 1950s there were a large number of reports concerning the examination of brains of persons who had died following ECT. Madow (1956) reviewed 38 such cases. In 31 of the 38 cases there was vascular pathology. However, much of this could have been of a potentially reversible nature. Such reversibility was much less with the 12 patients who had neuronal and/or glial pathology. The following are the comments pertaining to the neuronal and glial pathology and the amount of time between last treatment and death: "Gliosis and fibrosis" (5 months); "Small areas of cortical devastation, diffuse degeneration of nerve cells", "Astrocytic proliferation" (1 hour, 35 minutes); "Small areas of recent necrosis in cortex, hippocampus and medulla", "Astrocytic proliferation" (immediate); "Central chromatolysis, pyknosis, shadow cells (15 to 20 minutes); "Shrinking and swelling. ghost cells", "Satellitosis and neuronophagia" (7 days); "Chromatolysis, cell shrinkage''. "Diffuse gliosis, glial nodules beneath the ependyma of the third ventricle" (15 days); "Increased Astrocytes" (13 days); "Schemic and pyknotic ganglion cells" (48 hours); "Pigmentation and fatty degeneration, sclerotic and ghost cells", "Perivascular and pericellular gliosis" (10 minutes); "Decrease in ganglion cells in frontal lobes, lipoid pigment in globus pallidus and medical nucleus of thalamus", "Moderate glial proliferation" (36 hours); "Glial fibrosis in marginal layer of cortex, gliosis around ventricles and in marginal areas of brain stem, perivascular gliosis in white matter" (immediate); "Marginal proliferation of astrocytes, glial fibrosis around blood vessels of white matter, gliosis of thalamus, brain stem and medulla" (immediate). In one case the author (Riese, 1948), in addition to giving the neuronal and glial changes, reported numerous slits and rents similar to that seen after execution. Needless to say, patients who died following ECT are not representative of patients receiving ECT. They tended to be in inferior physical health. Madow concluded, on the basis of these 38 cases and 5 of his own, "If the individual being treated is well physically, most of the neuropathological changes are reversible. If, on the other hand, the patient has cardiac, vascular, or renal disease, the cerebral changes, chiefly vascular, may be permanent."

CONCLUSION

A wide array of research and clinical based facts that provide suggestive to impressive evidence in isolation, provide compelling evidence when viewed in a composite fashion. Some human and animal autopsies reveal permanent brain pathology. Some patients have persisting spontaneous seizures after having received ECT. Patients having received many ECTs score lower than control patients on psychological tests of organicity, even when degree of psychosis is controlled for.

A convergence of evidence indicates the importance of number of ECTs. We have previously referred to the significant inverse correlations between number of ECTs and scores on psychological tests. It is conceivable that this could be a function of the more disturbed patients receiving more ECTs and doing more poorly on tests. However, it would be much more difficult to explain away the relationship between number of ECTs received and EEG convulsive pattern dysrhythmia (Mosovich and Katzenelbogen, 1948). No patients had dysrhythmia prior to ECTs. Also difficult to explain away is that in Table I of Meldrum, Horton and Brierley (1974), the nine baboons who suffered brain damage from experimentally administrated convulsions tended to have received more convulsions than the five that did not incur damage. (According to our calculations, U=9, p < .05 ) And, as already stated, Hartelius found greater damage, both reversible and irreversible, in cats that were given 11 to l6 than in those given 4 ECTs.

Throughout this review the vast individual differences are striking. In the animal and human autopsy studies there is typically a range of findings from no lasting effect to considerable lasting damage with the latter being more of the exception. Most ECT patients don't have spontaneous seizures but some do. The subjective reports of patients likewise differ from those of no lasting effect to appreciable, although usually not devastating impairment. The fact that many patients and subjects suffer no demonstrable permanent effects has provided rationale for some authorities to commit the non-sequitur that ECT causes no permanent harm.

There is evidence to suggest that pre-ECT physical condition accounts in part for the vast individual differences. Jacobs (1944) determined the cerebrospinal fluid protein and cell content before, during, and after a course of ECT with 21 patients. The one person who developed abnormal protein and cell elevations was a 57-year-old diabetic, hypertensive, arteriosclerotic woman. Jacobs recommended that CSF protein and cell counts be ascertained before and after ECT in patients with significant degree of arteriosclerotic or hypertensive disease. Alpers (1946) reported, "Autopsied cases suggest that brain damage is likely to occur in conditions with pre-existing brain damage, as in cerebral arteriosclerosis." Wilcox (1944) offered the clinical impression that, in older patients, ECT memory changes continue for a longer time than for younger patients. Hartelius (1952) found significantly more reversible and irreversible brain changes following ECT in older cats than younger cats. Mosovich and Katzenelbogen (1948) found that patients with pretreatment EEG abnormalities are more likely to show marked post-ECT cerebral dysrhythmia and to generally show EEGs more adversely affected by treatment.

In spite of the abundance of evidence that ECT sometimes causes brain damage, the Report of The Task Force on Electroconvulsive Therapy of the American Psychiatric Association (1978) makes a legitimate point in stating that the preponderance of human and animal autopsy studies were carried out prior to the modern era of ECT administration that included anesthesia, muscle relaxants, and hyperoxygenation. In fact, animals which were paralyzed and artificially ventilated on oxygen had brain damage of somewhat lesser magnitude than, although similar patterns as, animals not convulsed without special measures. (Meldrum and Brierley, 1973; Meldrum, Vigourocex, Brierley, 1973). And it could further be maintained that the vast individual differences stressed above argue for the possibility of making ECT very safe for the brain through refinement of procedures and selection of patients. Regardless of such optimistic possibilities, our position remains that ECT has caused and can cause permanent pathology.





I would like you to read through the entire thing, because it almost seems as if the person writing it, really didnt want some of it to be true. But I would still say that the article is unbiased, and if it is biased in any direction, it is so in favor of psychiatry and ECT, if not only to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but if you really dont feel like reading it, just read the very last line and we can be done with this ridiculous conversation of whether or not ECT is harmful or not.

let me give it to you again...

Quote:

Regardless of such optimistic possibilities, our position remains that ECT has caused and can cause permanent pathology.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7552026 - 10/23/07 05:58 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

http://www.ect.org/effects/templer.html

that is the link.... I think the shroomery is acting up, it wouldnt let me edit the last post.

Oh also, that was a response to badchad, not you crystal G.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7552036 - 10/23/07 06:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:



Quote:

this is also a pretty big misinterpretation on your part

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.

You're also forgetting that in many drugs, which have multiple beneficial mechanisms, are used as off-label prescriptions simply because the given medical indication doesn't point to the drug's original purpose....And in many cases, work BETTER than the intended use of the drug.

Go look up the following drugs:

Verapamil, disopyramide, phenylephrine, fludrocortisone, amiodarone, ipratropium...




I dont see how I am misinterpreting this. Maybe you mean that I am not using your optimism on the subject. If I have a drug that was designed for regulating blood pressure, and find that it also help hemophiliacs clot..... which is easier to get it passed by the FDA?
Here we have millions of dollars riding on this drug being passed.... do we take the route that is easier, or harder to prove efficacy and safety?




Let me ask you a question, did you even read the point of my reply? because it sounds like you didn't even understand what i was rebutting to but instead you were too eager to run on anecdotes.

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.


Quote:

Drugs are regulated and approved based on the findings of the drug studies.




Do you realize that the research on alot of classes of drugs are always going on? Many times, new discoveries or scientific breakthroughs on human physiology will alter the perspective and potential of a drug which had already been released for use.

Look at the research they're doing on N.O., or beta-blocker's benefits on heart failure. Seriously, go look.

Quote:

Then , with no disclosed findings upon the intended purpose of the drug, we tell doctors that it works really well for regulating blood pressure.




So when a patient is dying of a rapid spreading infarct, and already entering comatous, it should be the doctor's duty to say

"uhm so here's the drug i'm going to give to you, it wasn't originally used to do this, but it works well on this as seen from more recent research. Here let me list you all the 95 drug interactions and possible side effects you might experience"

Quote:


doctors arent forced to tell you that the drug they are prescribing you is in fact off-label usage. You arent told that you are a guinea pig.




Research, is really an ongoing process. New benefits and mechanisms which are found continuously shape the use and promotion of drugs. There's a huge commercial pressure on the industry for sure.


You should atleast consider looking at some of the drugs I listed. Their research and molding roles as drugs have heavily changed due to modern research.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7552056 - 10/23/07 06:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
Oh also, that was a response to badchad, not you crystal G.




hehehe, i know that :wink: i've been following the thread like a good pip.


I recall one VERY depresssed patient in the psych ward who was receiving ECT, because he did not like the concept of taking prescription drugs. How they cornered him into signing the papers for this treatment, I don't even want to know. I'm sure they manipulated him somehow, he was in there longer than everybody else.

Nowadays when ECT is conducted, the patient is SUPPOSED to be passed out. However, what do they do for those who refuse to accept drug medications? I'd really like to know myself.

Also, to add to your statement, I'm pretty sure doctors have determined that if the brain is kept in a state of constant seizure for more than a few minutes, it causes demyelination.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7552087 - 10/23/07 06:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
Maybe in an hour or so I will have more time to address both of your posts more in-depth... especially, the off-label use.







thanks for posting a big link that had nothing to do about what we were debating.

I've already heard your stance on anti-psychotics, you've repeated it several times per debate.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7552268 - 10/23/07 06:59 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

that link I posted, atleast in the beginning, was relevant to our discussion of off label use.
Atypical anti-psychotics being given to 5 year olds is rather off label wouldnt you say?
or am I wrong on that? where are all these studies that have come out in favor of showing atypical anti-psychotics are effective in treating ADD/ADHD in 5 year olds?
oh wait, there isnt any.

how does that hold up to your "doctors are prescribing off label because of new studies coming to light" theory?
frankly, i am not that against off label use for medical procedures and whatnot. I understand that each medical case is different and where one drug would work off label for someone, it wouldnt work for 1000 others with the same condition.
I get that.... granted, i am apalled at the unregulated, almost turning a blind eye, of pharm corps buying doctors to push their pills.... but I have slightly more respect for medical doctors than the lowly scum that are psychiatrists.

I think if you go back and read the entire quote that you will understand the difference between giving patient A a different medication than intended use for Problem B.... and putting children on zyprexa for being hyperactive.
There is no definitive diagnostic criteria for ADD/ADHD... in fact, nothing about the psychiatric field has been confirmed by science to be true... it is all based on theories that are loosely supported by correlation.
it isnt scientific by any means. the entire industry is working on the premise of cause and effect. Give out drugs, say it cures this disease we made up, then when people realize that it is causing health problems, and in general not working, give them the new and improved drug....


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7552486 - 10/23/07 07:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:

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 dont think you understood my post. that is only a slight reason I am against off label use. Is it really hard to tell a patient "hey, this drug I am prescribing was initially designed for X, but it has shown significant promise in dealing with Y, and it has been known to cause side effects of A,B and C, have a nice day".?

there is no real definition, or diagnosis of insanity. It is purely subjective, so we cant say that "You have X, this drug was intended for Y, but has shown promise in people with X" because you can never definitively say that this person has X.
Am I wrong in asserting that the "diagnosis" and symptoms of bi-polar, anxiety, depression and a myriad of other "diseases" have huge areas of overlapping?
take a stroll through this forum and see how many people have made claims of their doctors misdiagnosing their mental disorder.


Quote:

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.



yeah, but when you approve your drug for one thing, you are targeting a certain group of people, with similar conditions.... when you start Rxing off label, you are treating a different condition than was previously tested.... and this group of different conditions might have different side effects that went previously unnoticed due to the conditions of the initial test group.

Quote:

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



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


Quote:

Quote:

Then , with no disclosed findings upon the intended purpose of the drug, we tell doctors that it works really well for regulating blood pressure.




So when a patient is dying of a rapid spreading infarct, and already entering comatous, it should be the doctor's duty to say

"uhm so here's the drug i'm going to give to you, it wasn't originally used to do this, but it works well on this as seen from more recent research. Here let me list you all the 95 drug interactions and possible side effects you might experience"







now who is being anecdotal?

I doubt in a life or death situation a doctor will risk his career because some pharm rep gave him a trip to vegas for a week to use Drug X.... but when you go to visit a doctor for a problem, and you are sitting there talking to him while he is writing out the prescription... bam, there is a great time to tell them a little about the drug.
People put too much trust in doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry has preyed upon that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553309 - 10/23/07 11:37 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:


I dont think you understood my post. that is only a slight reason I am against off label use. Is it really hard to tell a patient "hey, this drug I am prescribing was initially designed for X, but it has shown significant promise in dealing with Y, and it has been known to cause side effects of A,B and C, have a nice day".?




So you're against using a drug if it's not for it's initial intended use? You just said you're against off label use.

Consent is a completely different issue. No shit it's better off the doc telling you the possible side effects of a certain drug.

Quote:

there is no real definition, or diagnosis of insanity. It is purely subjective, so we cant say that "You have X, this drug was intended for Y, but has shown promise in people with X" because you can never definitively say that this person has X.
Am I wrong in asserting that the "diagnosis" and symptoms of bi-polar, anxiety, depression and a myriad of other "diseases" have huge areas of overlapping?
take a stroll through this forum and see how many people have made claims of their doctors misdiagnosing their mental disorder.




You just went from talking about the intended drug use of a prescription to talking about why it's so hard to diagnose certain psychotic diseases. That had NOTHING to do with what we were talking about. You specifically said you're against off-label drug use, i gave you some benefits and examples, and you haven't even looked them up.



Quote:


yeah, but when you approve your drug for one thing, you are targeting a certain group of people, with similar conditions.... when you start Rxing off label, you are treating a different condition than was previously tested.... and this group of different conditions might have different side effects that went previously unnoticed due to the conditions of the initial test group.




So you're basically assuming that when a drug is being researched for it's supplementary beneficial use, that they don't also discover various side effects WITHIN those groups?

It should also be noted that many drugs have been shown to be beneficial in instances where they are counterindicated. What does that tell you?

Quote:


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




do you even realize what the initial discussion was about? have you forgotten what we were talking about?

YOU SAID, and i repeat, that you oppose the use of off-label drugs, period. This had nothing to do with pushing drugs on patients, nothing to do with anti psychotics, and nothing to do with that paper you posted.

Off label drugs, that is what we're talking about. Stay on topic.


Quote:


I doubt in a life or death situation a doctor will risk his career because some pharm rep gave him a trip to vegas for a week to use Drug X.... but when you go to visit a doctor for a problem, and you are sitting there talking to him while he is writing out the prescription... bam, there is a great time to tell them a little about the drug.
People put too much trust in doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry has preyed upon that.




you were talking specifically about the use of blood pressure medication, do you realize the majority of blood pressure medication is used during emergency situations?

antiarrythmics anyone? can you stay on topic instead of using this oppurtunity to go off on a soap box that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about?


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553311 - 10/23/07 11:39 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

frankly, i am not that against off label use for medical procedures and whatnot.





Quote:

YawningAnus said:
that is only a slight reason I am against off label use.





Uhhhhh ok. We'll end it there.


Wieeerrrrdoooo. I just think getting into extensive shroomery debates gives you some sort of emotional pleasure.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7553390 - 10/24/07 12:21 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

ok, you say I am going off topic, and I say that my last 4 posts excluding the ECT one, is dealing with some of the reasons why I am against off label use.


you are just skirting around the issue.

I cant tell if you are really this oblivious, or if this is some debating tactic.... but here is an example of why I am the one who is being on topic, and you are wasting time on semantics and non-sequitir positioning.

you said
Quote:

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




then I replied
Quote:

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




then you said
Quote:

do you even realize what the initial discussion was about? have you forgotten what we were talking about?





Dont you understand that off label use is basically a way to bypass the FDA? It is kind of like lobbying. let me break this down for you like I am talking to a 4 year old.
like a politician, corporations need people. Politicians need people to vote them into office, and corporations need people to buy their product or service.
But once a politician is voted into office, he really doesnt need the people anymore... that is where the lobbyist comes in. He buys his vote so that they can get their financial and future intrests cemented into law.
Much liek the politician, some corporations have products that have been considered a neccesity.... so, once you have a product that is a neccessity, you really dont have to pander to the consumers (the people).... and these people place an unwavering trust in their doctor, who is in turn bribed, much like the politician in our other story, to push designer and name brand drugs for intended as well as off-label use.

Do you seriously not see how this is relevant to our discussion? maybe you need a flow chart...
people trust doctors ----> doctors get financial incentives to make decisions that arent always in the best intrest of the health of thir patient ----> they prescribe them the drugs they were paid to prescribe by the pharmaceutical company ----> pharmaceutical company sits on a big pile of money that it got from bankrupting state funded medicare.


yes, I am against off label use.... as it is right now. why? because it isnt regulated.... at all. In fact, the only thing that is a retarding force in the free-for-all prescription fest is the threat of malpractice lawsuits.... which the pharmaceutical industry doesnt have to worry about, but rather the doctors, even though they are insured for such things.

you are acting as if off label use as it stands right now is some do-or-die problem, that cannot have a compromise. I agree that in certain situations a doctor needs to use off label use at his discretion.... but there needs to be more rules.

and I wasnt discussing blood pressure medications really, I was just using that as an example. One you obviously seemed to have missed.

Quote:

So you're basically assuming that when a drug is being researched for it's supplementary beneficial use, that they don't also discover various side effects WITHIN those groups?

It should also be noted that many drugs have been shown to be beneficial in instances where they are counterindicated. What does that tell you?




1) who is carrying out these studies? I will find it if you want, but I remember reading an article about something the FDA said regarding how they are unable to supervise even a fraction of these studies and are forced to take these companies words for their findings.
2) I dont doubt that some drugs have benefits beyond their intended use, just as much as they find more side effects beyond their initial studies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553411 - 10/24/07 12:28 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

lol, he thinks youre going off-topic because he doesn't realize that all the issues you discussed are actually INTERCONNECTED. LMFAO!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJorsher
Psychonaut
Male


Registered: 08/28/06
Posts: 691
Loc: Earth
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553438 - 10/24/07 12:42 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I think if a drug is going to be used for off-label purposes, the patient needs to be aware that the drug isn't being prescribed for its typical treatment.  If a doctor told me "this drug is prescribed for ____ but has shown promise in treating ____.  Using it for this purpose is still relatively new, would you like to give it a try" I would most likely be cool with it.  On the other hand, if I was prescribed something off-label, which ended up causing more harm than good, I'd be very pissed.

A lot of you are being too general with your judgments.  Some doctors do care about pushing a drug, while others care more about helping the patient.  In the past, I was prescribed Paxil.  The doctor warned me of all the possible side-effects, told me I can expect it to take 2 or more weeks to begin feeling the effects, and that it could make me drowsy.  This doctor also went on to help me get set up with a counselor.

Recently, I was prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) by a doctor.  Depression isn't really a problem anymore (thanks to psylocybin adventures), but anxiety continues to be an issue.  I was worried about being prescribed another (ineffective) SSRI, and chose to pump my leg to increase heartrate and think of things that usually upset my anxiety just to make sure I would get something different.  In less than 5 minutes, the doctor had a prescription for Xanax made and was out the door.  Honestly, I was somewhat upset that he would be so quick to prescribe a benzodiazepam without telling me ANY side effects, dangers, withdrawals, etc.  Originally he was going to write a 3 month prescription for 2mg a day, but changed his mind and decided to prescribe it for a month, advising me that if it works to try taking half a dose (.5mg) at a time and see how it does.  This is the only "responsible" thing I feel that he did.  He asked if I smoke or drink, and I told him not much smoking but I do drink, and he didn't even advise me of the possible amnesia when mixing alcohol and xanax:mad:

Alprazolam isn't the most dangerous prescription by far, but it has a great potential for being problematic.  It just kind of bugged me that he was so quick to prescribe a benzo without telling anything about them.  If the prescriptions didn't come with an information sheet, I'd be even more upset, even though I'm sure 90% of patients don't even read/comprehend it.

My point is, every doctor is different.  Generalizing that ALL doctors are bad or good is not a great idea.  Some (maybe most?) are out there to help people.


--------------------
5 shroom me!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553443 - 10/24/07 12:43 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
ok, you say I am going off topic, and I say that my last 4 posts excluding the ECT one, is dealing with some of the reasons why I am against off label use.

you are just skirting around the issue.

I cant tell if you are really this oblivious, or if this is some debating tactic.... but here is an example of why I am the one who is being on topic, and you are wasting time on semantics and non-sequitir positioning.





the post above you, shows you're pretty much wasting your own time contradicting yourself.

Quote:


Dont you understand that off label use is basically a way to bypass the FDA?




Don't you understand that has nothing to do with the initial purpose of off label use? Something that you haven't even acknowledged yet? Do you even read my rebuttals?

Quote:

Do you seriously not see how this is relevant to our discussion? maybe you need a flow chart...
people trust doctors ----> doctors get financial incentives to make decisions that arent always in the best intrest of the health of thir patient ----> they prescribe them the drugs they were paid to prescribe by the pharmaceutical company ----> pharmaceutical company sits on a big pile of money that it got from bankrupting state funded medicare.




Once again i'll ask you since you love being on such a soap box of an entire debate that still has very little relevance to what we're talking about.

You said, you were, against off label drug use. If one of your primary reasons is because of the pill pushing on doctors, you're using a pretty weak example, considering:

#1 the issue of pill pushing is mainly for the use of specialized renditions of generic drugs, while very few off-label drugs are even the primary concern of pharmaceutical reps' influence on doctors.

SO again i ask you, what the hell was the point of that big paper?

#2 you're going way off topic, diverting the issue to something that is only one small facet about the pros and cons of allowing off-label drug use.

You're failing to realize, that I never said pill pushing wasn't a factor in the problem of off-label drug use, NO SHIT it is. You spent too little time actually trying to address what i initially posted, which was the original purpose of off-label drug use. And you spent too much time posting things and creating a side-debate talking about pill-pushing when you weren't even considering that i've already, along long time ago in this thread, acknowledged that pill pushing is a problem.

Reading comprehension failure? Go look up, it's there.


Quote:

yes, I am against off label use.... as it is right now. why? because it isnt regulated.... at all. In fact, the only thing that is a retarding force in the free-for-all prescription fest is the threat of malpractice lawsuits.... which the pharmaceutical industry doesnt have to worry about, but rather the doctors, even though they are insured for such things.




So every single drug that's out there, that's being used for multiple purposes, should only be used for their intended purpose.

That's basically what you're getting at. If you're against off label use, that means you're against the use of drugs outside of their originally intended purpose, right? Since that's the definition of "off label use".

Quote:

you are acting as if off label use as it stands right now is some do-or-die problem, that cannot have a compromise.




Do you even know about all the different drugs used in emergency situations...which are considered "off label"? Do you?

Quote:


1) who is carrying out these studies? I will find it if you want, but I remember reading an article about something the FDA said regarding how they are unable to supervise even a fraction of these studies and are forced to take these companies words for their findings.




Uhhh it's been a pretty familiar breakthrough recently in pharmaceuticals that the effects of beta-blockers are actually beneficial in heart failure situations, something previously considered a counter indication.

Why?

Because the advent of more recent research has shed new light on the drug's regulation of hormonal synthesis.

But i guess the drug shouldn't be used for heart failure, since it would be considered an "off label" use of the drug, right?



Quote:

2) I dont doubt that some drugs have benefits beyond their intended use, just as much as they find more side effects beyond their initial studies.





Really, so you just assume this, without even following the research being done on various drugs already placed in the market?

You truely believe that a drug's additional discovered benefits wouldn't be able to override it's side effects? Are you making a general statement about every single drug being researched out there?


--------------------
"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 01:09 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553518 - 10/24/07 01:18 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

Quote:

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



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







this is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of you shifting topics in some sort of mental confusion.

How did you go from talking about the off-label use definition being used as an FDA approval mechanism, something that had nothing to do with my initial mentioning of the benefits of off-label use,

to talking about me all of a sudden not believing doctor's recieve incentives for pushing drugs onto their patients?

What does pushing pills on doctors as off-label use have ANYTHING TO DO WITH the pharmaceutical company's alteration of the drug's intended use in order to get FDA approval?

Did you even understand the context of my rebuttal that you quoted? It seems like you REALLY didn'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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7553639 - 10/24/07 03:23 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:

Quote:

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



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







this is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of you shifting topics in some sort of mental confusion.

How did you go from talking about the off-label use definition being used as an FDA approval mechanism, something that had nothing to do with my initial mentioning of the benefits of off-label use,

to talking about me all of a sudden not believing doctor's recieve incentives for pushing drugs onto their patients?

What does pushing pills on doctors as off-label use have ANYTHING TO DO WITH the pharmaceutical company's alteration of the drug's intended use in order to get FDA approval?

Did you even understand the context of my rebuttal that you quoted? It seems like you REALLY didn't.




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?

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.

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.

from wiki..

Quote:

Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood,[1] with approximately 0.4–0.6%[2][3] of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia exists.




so we can say that it is prevalent in half a percent of the population...
more wiki...
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.

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7553666 - 10/24/07 04:12 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:

Quote:


Dont you understand that off label use is basically a way to bypass the FDA?




Don't you understand that has nothing to do with the initial purpose of off label use? Something that you haven't even acknowledged yet? Do you even read my rebuttals?




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:

Quote:

Do you seriously not see how this is relevant to our discussion? maybe you need a flow chart...
people trust doctors ----> doctors get financial incentives to make decisions that arent always in the best intrest of the health of thir patient ----> they prescribe them the drugs they were paid to prescribe by the pharmaceutical company ----> pharmaceutical company sits on a big pile of money that it got from bankrupting state funded medicare.




Once again i'll ask you since you love being on such a soap box of an entire debate that still has very little relevance to what we're talking about.

You said, you were, against off label drug use. If one of your primary reasons is because of the pill pushing on doctors, you're using a pretty weak example, considering:

#1 the issue of pill pushing is mainly for the use of specialized renditions of generic drugs, while very few off-label drugs are even the primary concern of pharmaceutical reps' influence on doctors.



#1 makes no sense to me. please reword it.

Quote:


#2 you're going way off topic, diverting the issue to something that is only one small facet about the pros and cons of allowing off-label drug use.




how is discussing off label use way off topic when discussing off label use? small facet? is it a small facet when seroquel caused 3x the prevalence of death in elderly patients than placebo? especially when it is still prescribed off label to elderly?


Quote:

You're failing to realize, that I never said pill pushing wasn't a factor in the problem of off-label drug use, NO SHIT it is. You spent too little time actually trying to address what i initially posted, which was the original purpose of off-label drug use. And you spent too much time posting things and creating a side-debate talking about pill-pushing when you weren't even considering that i've already, along long time ago in this thread, acknowledged that pill pushing is a problem.



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.

Quote:



So every single drug that's out there, that's being used for multiple purposes, should only be used for their intended purpose.

That's basically what you're getting at. If you're against off label use, that means you're against the use of drugs outside of their originally intended purpose, right? Since that's the definition of "off label use".



didnt I just get done telling you that I am against the system in which it is carried out and allowed?
You didnt say anything about the holocaust, so you obviously are a nazi supporter. I mean, that is what you are getting at right?



Quote:

Really, so you just assume this, without even following the research being done on various drugs already placed in the market?

You truely believe that a drug's additional discovered benefits wouldn't be able to override it's side effects? Are you making a general statement about every single drug being researched out there?



I am saying that when these off label benefits are discovered, how often do the pharm reps also talk about the new side effects? for example, if we have a drug that is intended for anxiety, and someone says that it helps fight dementia in the elderly, then you are working with an entirely different group of possible side effects.... during drug trials, it didnt have to show its safety with octegenarians, so it is left up to the pharm corps to be on the honor system and disclose the new problems that arise.... 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.
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.

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".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7553796 - 10/24/07 06:09 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
I would like you to read through the entire thing, because it almost seems as if the person writing it, really didnt want some of it to be true. But I would still say that the article is unbiased, and if it is biased in any direction, it is so in favor of psychiatry and ECT, if not only to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but if you really dont feel like reading it, just read the very last line and we can be done with this ridiculous conversation of whether or not ECT is harmful or not.





I don't doubt the quality of your article as it is actually peer-reviewed and in a research journal. This is much different than something published in a newspaper or by www.ihatepsychiatry.com. Unfortunately it's about 25 years old.

Plenty of other studies have shown favorable outcomes with ECT, and few side effects. Thus, the argument over the clinical use of ECT is not "ridiculous" by any means. The use of ECT has a risk:benefit ratio just like any other medical procedure.

As far as off-label use is concerned, what is your general position on the FDA then?

You usually say: "The FDA doesn't protect anyone, they are a puppet of big pharma ", but then you turn around and say: "It's really hard to get a drug approved, so to get around this problem, off-label use was created".

Off-label use is under the discretion of the physician. If he/she chooses to use it for an off-label use, that patient should be the responsibility of the physician. Considering the amount of lawsuits brought forth in this country against doctors, I believe most physicians will act in the best interests of their patient.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestefan
work in progress


Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 8,932
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7553898 - 10/24/07 07:03 AM (16 years, 3 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:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554697 - 10/24/07 12:05 PM (16 years, 3 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 02:29 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554819 - 10/24/07 12:40 PM (16 years, 3 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7554938 - 10/24/07 01:11 PM (16 years, 3 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 02:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post 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 02:55 PM (16 years, 3 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7555696 - 10/24/07 04:15 PM (16 years, 3 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555752 - 10/24/07 04:28 PM (16 years, 3 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555845 - 10/24/07 04:44 PM (16 years, 3 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7555967 - 10/24/07 05:05 PM (16 years, 3 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7556544 - 10/24/07 07:15 PM (16 years, 3 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7587431 - 11/02/07 11:33 AM (16 years, 2 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7587479 - 11/02/07 11:46 AM (16 years, 2 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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7587684 - 11/02/07 12:40 PM (16 years, 2 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7587731 - 11/02/07 12:52 PM (16 years, 2 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 01:23 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: Crystal G]
    #7587841 - 11/02/07 01:21 PM (16 years, 2 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrystal G
I'm a teapot


Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 5 days
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7587861 - 11/02/07 01:25 PM (16 years, 2 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 02:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: zorbman]
    #7590415 - 11/03/07 08:40 AM (16 years, 2 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineranke
Space Pirate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/21/06
Posts: 137
Loc: Portland Oregon
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: d33p]
    #7592136 - 11/03/07 07:10 PM (16 years, 2 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".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: "Evil docters, dangerous pharms..." Enough of this poppy cock [Re: ranke]
    #7593358 - 11/04/07 01:34 AM (16 years, 2 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post 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 08:20 PM (16 years, 2 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:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An Evil Plan WebLiZaRD 1,168 15 07/04/04 06:59 AM
by WebLiZaRD
* pharms sunchaser 726 6 06/10/06 10:02 AM
by SneezingPenis
* Drugs, Pharms and Me recalcitrant 1,026 5 09/15/04 11:40 PM
by Skikid16
* Dangerous foods? kugis 702 2 01/11/06 03:26 PM
by kugis
* LSD mentally more dangerous than shrooms?
( 1 2 all )
Hershey 12,513 21 01/24/05 01:50 AM
by Majestic
* Dangers of the Lotus position? koppie 3,445 9 11/17/05 10:01 PM
by Icelander
* I do drugs. tak 907 2 10/19/03 08:04 AM
by Anonymous
* should i go to the docter or can someone help out please? DistortedEyes 1,291 17 10/27/04 03:09 PM
by TheDude

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: CherryBom, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, feevers, CookieCrumbs, Northerner
10,274 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.067 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.