-
I read the user group recommendation, then the manufacturer's marketing, and then the trial reports, before asking my doctor to switch me to the new version. Even after all that, I'd have been open to hearing his critique of my request if he'd had one
this is good^^^^
a point i may have been failing to make is that i find it annoying that this process should be necessary, especially for a layperson.
call me lazy in this way but i want it to be like this...
"hi there well paid, well studied, non biased proffesional. i have this question, its X. is the answer A. B. or C"?
"well layperson, this is actually very easy, the actual correct answer is B. have a good day now"
the whole thing is a minefield. and this is where my rant began....
-
What, from my own personal study? Of course not... this doesn't invalidate the assertion.
This CNN article (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/08/29/ritalin.schools/) states:
"Government studies suggest approximately 4-million school-age children suffer from ADHD. Yet, about 20-million prescriptions were written last year for stimulant drugs, according to IMS Health, a health care information company. The number of prescriptions written for the drugs has steadily increased since 1996 when about 14-million were written."
I have not checked the sources. Im also making the assumption that the prescriptions of "stimulant drugs" were as treatment for ADHD based on the context, even though this is not explicit. There are dozens and dozens of articles on this.
The same figures are quoted here: http://www.childrentoday.com/articles/addadhd/the-great-ritalin-debate-719/
Along with reference to warnings made by the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board regarding the dramatic increase in prescriptions.
...and another:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5308292.stmShit, some people even debate the existence of the condition at all.
You're kidding, right? My position is ever evolving based on the collective information gleaned from numerous sources. Some sources are sound, some probably not. I make my own subjective assessment of the quality of the source and add it to the body of information contributing to that position. Im not "deferring to a higher authority". You have asked me for statistical evidence supporting my position. Do you expect me to dredge that data from my memory banks? Jesus... I left my bag on a bus today... you think Ive got that kind of brain capacity? I can cite any number of references supporting that position. Will you be able to find shortcomings with one or more elements of those sources? Probably. Your desire to challenge the convention is admirable... Its also a good way to stifle dialogue. Genuinely, I am interested in your position on this topic.
More importantly, I am a mouthpiece for no-ones opinions but my own...
Well?
It was a reduction from a previously excessive position. This was the opinion of a trained medical professional, its not something I determined myself. Im aware there are a number of ways in which my illustrative "75%" comment can be interpreted. The potential for multiple interpretations don't change the fact.
See above
Try me...
Andy and Tiswas posted stuff broadly in line with my thinking.
What do you mean by overmedication? yawn
Ideological concerns with practical repercussions.
I dont have a problem with private enterprise making profits.
The whole "overmedication" business isn't really core to what I was getting at. Here is what I wanted to talk about:
I've mentioned the MMA... really interesting legislation relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals. Have you read it? There is also some interesting reading on the "revolving door" between the legislature and private enterprise across a number of industries.
In relation to the point regarding doctors being influenced by pharmaceutical companies, a 5 second google exercise reveals one of dozens of articles on the topic.. you cant read the whole of this without subscribing, but the intro has the conclusions. Its from the British Medical Journal which I'd perceive to be a reputable source.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7472/937
"The pharmaceutical industry operates in a way that puts profits before public health, members of parliament (MPs) heard last week. And the regulatory authorities, which are meant to ensure the safety of drugs and protect the public, collude with the industry, they were told.
Testimonies from five doctors and two consumer champions, who were being questioned by the health select committee for its inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, built a picture of an industry that creates health anxieties among the public to boost its profits.
At the same time, withholding unfavourable trial results and controlling what research gets published ensures that doctors get the messages that companies want to promote, the committee heard at the second public sitting of its inquiry.
Public awareness campaigns are part of a "multipronged marketing approach" that are commonly employed by drug companies to "gain further control of what drugs are being (prescribed?)"
Right or wrong, mine is hardly a controversial position. What is yours?
Throw me anything! Im pretty sure that the information in those articles isn't new to you.
Balki Schick
:-0
-
dang, dont you ever sleep?
On Mondays and Fridays.
well i was finding it pretty dam annoying. maybe im not so used to the right tools and methods to look.
Were you trying to find out whether chips are better for you than Cadbury's Creme Eggs ?
this was the bit i didnt want to discuss. for me its like a catch all informal conversational thing not a scientific by numbers thing. in one scenerio it could mean one thig but another scenerio it could mean another. i really dont come at this from a scientific method perspective which mean you and i could go round in circles on this.
I don't really come at this from a scientific angle either, 'overmedication' can mean literally anything (within reason) that we want it to mean - I have no problem with it being defined as 'giving any medication at all to under 12 year olds' or 'the fluoridation of drinking water' - but to answer the question we would need an understanding of what is being asked as, like I say, without that structure the question will become a hostage to people's opinion.
I could kill my big brother with a brazil nut
what are you a bond villain?
I like to think so.
a general consensus is about the best you will get in science.
and therein lies the base of my frustration as a layperson. if the best i can hope for is consensus (which appears to be unlikely) then we as the layfolk public are scuppered trying to find easy access to reliable info. which turns into my....
""fuck it. i cant be fucked woith the amount of shit on the internet"
Consensus is good, it's certainly good enough for me, 996 scientists thinking the earth is several billion years old and 4 who believe it to be a few thousand years old is enough of a consensus for me to think the earth is very likely several billion years old.
it was pretty much this... "i have been led to believe that human beings are designed (lets not get started on this please - i think you know what i mean) for a diet of low fat, low protein, high carbohydrates from non animal sources" now it wasnt about what humans can live or survive on. more about diet for optimum health. diet to thrive on, ya dig? i've read articles championing both sides of the fence. then i read something more conclusive and wonder why the dam hell all the other stuff is there if this new bit is more accurate and better supported? so then i go down the route of investigating ketosis - a state induced by very low carb intake. from all ive read before, ketosis is a dangerous place to be, supporting the high carb low fat/protein side. but whats this? i come accross a site proclaiming the 'facts' about ketosis and how its totally safe (providing you arent diabetic) and in fact a very normal state for humans throughout a large portion of their history before they started relying on veg carbs. just look at the eskimo's yadda yadda. i got too pissed off to carry on. and as a vegan, part of me doesnt want to be given facts that a high animal protein, medium fat and low carb diet is the most natural and vitality giving diet for the human. but as a person who has suffered health problems for a large part of life i do want to know if i could be giving myself a better headstart in that one area. so im confused, the info is confusing, and all of that lead to this here discussion...
I think you answer your own question ("why if there is data with good support do we have all this other conflicting stuff') with "as a vegan, part of me doesnt want to be given facts that a high animal protein, medium fat and low carb diet is the most natural and vitality giving diet for the human".
I suspect people apply their innate moral compass to questions that have no (direct) moral element.
A question like whether we are overmedicated - (which we should be able to answer by the very nature that we know what we mean by the question) - can often draw out answers that are more moral judgments than honest appraisals of the question.
To a certain audience if you were to ask which is more healthy for you - natural plant extract A or synthesised chemical B - they will universally answer A, they will not need any evidence to support their conclusion they just know it is right to use natural products - even if you were to show that A shortened life span by 15% and B extended life span by 15% it would make little difference - they would simply subsume these figures into their thinking, rationalise them, perhaps even dismiss them outright as being the product of a rigged test. If you were to ask them to run the same test (so they could see there was no foul play) and it gave the same results they would still be unconvinced that B is better than A - the results would be seen as problematic because the real judgement is not being made with any kind of intellectual honesty, the tools they are using to make a clinical judgement are really moral tools - they judge one thing as 'right' and one as 'wrong'.
That is why you get all this conflicting information, we are intellectually dishonest by default, we apply moral thinking to situations that have no moral content.
none of that info is given. its a 30 day free trial of a lisenced drug not available yet. tol free number is all. oh and its in the states. open itunes. click radio. click hiphop/rap and its clubradio's 90's hiphop staion. description says"all the 90's hiphop/rap channel" its only on after about 5 in the pm. 1700 for you army/national rail folk. listen for about 30 mins and you'll hear it. along with some great music*
Sounds great, like those fellas in the UK a few years back who, while trialing a drug, had their heads balloon up to twice it's size and generally get fucked up - definitely getting some.
a more 'natural' and 'alternative' method or two would be to stop eating so much god dam rubbish food. and do some low impact excercise (to minimise injury rates of sedentary people - over sported? sport is killing people?). hows about that as an example? yes you take take a drug to lose weight. or you can be less lazy and put some effort in. ( i cant assume comparable efficacy, but my personal feling is that putting a little effort in and seeing the results of that effort are really really rewarding, and in the food/weight issue it gives you a more workable idea of how your diet and lifestyle actually affects your weight/happiness/sense of welbeing/health etc etc. so in this case, comparable efficacy is les important).
I'd say this was a fairly good example of drug use being unnecessary.
I also see a moral element (not always a bad thing) - talk of 'lazy' people v 'nature' (is that a fair reading ?)
If there was a pill that had all the benefits of exercise and no side effects would you still be against it ?
as an last ditch measure in life threatening circumstaces this drug may be a good idea, but i imagine there are a lot of people out there who would jump on this who arent in that state.
How dare you, sure I put on a couple of pounds last Christmas, but I am no monster (starts crying into his 2 litre Hagen Daz)
but in the equally ridiculous hypothetical example where someone goes to their GP and says......
"im realy worried about my weight. its too much, but im a little concerned as how to go about losing some, could you refer me to a nutritionalist or give me some guidance to gentle excercise to help kick start the revolution of my life so i can change and become healtier and happier? please doc?"
and the GP says
"nah forget about putting in effort, what you need is this new drug. you dont have to change anything in your lifestyle or eating habits. you just take this drug and you'll lose weight. much easier. and if you dont like swallowing pills then crushit up and put in your ice cream. easy"
Again the main thing I am seeing here (maybe I am misreading it ?) is a moral question - let's suppose both routes lead to a healthier, happier and slimmer Mr Fat Bastard - and let's suppose there are no side effects worth worrying about - would you still judge this (the 'pill' route) to be the worse option ?
its interesting for me to notice that i've had personal experience of at least 7 of the things on your spoof periodic table. good experienes which i felt helped me at the time. this whole thread would have had a different affect on me back then, but now i can laugh it off and go ha, placebo, yea probably was just that. this is just an unrelated sidenote.
It's a good point, a lot of these things will have a pronounced placebo effect and help some people (around a third of people are susceptible to the placebo effect) feel better about a whole range of things.
I am guilty of subscribing to one (maybe a brief fling with a second) of them when I was younger.
-
I didn't read N3lsons as a misunderstanding of the placebo effect. Earlier in the page we've been talking about branded versus generic versions of the same drug (Nurofen vs generic ibuprofen).
Maybe I misunderstood what was written - I read "a lot of what a drug does is down to you" as support for the placebo effect being a large part of a drugs efficacy ?
-
I think I understand !?
Placebos have less side effects ?
Sorry if I am being stupid, I have a bad bad bad cold and a fever.
I was merely pointing out that if you took an aspirin for your cold, a boots own brand one, that had a large list of side effects, you may feel you experience more of those side effects than if you were taking the same drug in a different package, having being told that it causes less side effects. Side effects aren't the same as the dugs intended pupose, you must have seen the list of possible side effects on any drug packaging, its normally as long as my arm (and i have average arms). For example, a possible side effect of paracetamol is head aches.
-
Were you trying to find out whether chips are better for you than Cadbury's Creme Eggs ?
reading fail
"as a vegan"
but if creme eggs still had runny centres like they did when i were a lad, i could be swayed...
without that structure the question will become a hostage to people's opinion.
fair enough. like i said, its not really my argument and i and i didnt really have a definition for it, just some stuff that seemed vaguely related.
Consensus is good, it's certainly good enough for me, 996 scientists thinking the earth is several billion years old and 4 who believe it to be a few thousand years old is enough of a consensus for me to think the earth is very likely several billion years old.
please view from 4:10
YouTube- Catch Me If You Can - Doctor
why didnt i concur?
I think you answer your own question...
I suspect people apply their innate moral compass to questions that have no (direct) moral element....
That is why you get all this conflicting information, we are intellectually dishonest by default, we apply moral thinking to situations that have no moral content.
this time, i concur.
I also see a moral element (not always a bad thing) - talk of 'lazy' people v 'nature' (is that a fair reading ?)
im not quite sure what you are asking here.
If there was a pill that had all the benefits of exercise and no side effects would you still be against it ?
ALL the benifits? like endorphines, the sense of acheivement, the community base and friends you can find through excersise, the amazing sense of flying when you run or ride with no effort and a big smile, the way your motivation levels for other things change alongside the exercise/weightloss shebang? etc etc etc? wow, thats a hell of a pill. but if im honest, from a personal viewpoint, yes, id still rather take the real exercise over the pill. thats because i love oto do these things and feel the sensations in my body. but then, if the pill does it all, maybe i'd just have too much free time? hard question. also, i probably wouldnt trust it either. so yes, in this case, there becomes a moral aspect to it.
good job im not in a position of authority eh.
on a side note, when i was called for jury service i ended up saying to the person in charge, "if this case is rape or abuse of any sort, they are already guilty in my opinion. i cant be impartial on this, just you know..."
it was a rape case and i got let go. dunno if my confession had anything to do with it or not. just a big glaring example of this....
"I suspect people apply their innate moral compass ...."
I am guilty of subscribing to one (maybe a brief fling with a second) of them when I was younger.
ha ha, sucker. just like the rest of us... please tell us which ones. if it was islam or christianity i think the world might implode...
-
I was merely pointing out that if you took an aspirin for your cold, a boots own brand one, that had a large list of side effects, you may feel you experience more of those side effects than if you were taking the same drug in a different package, having being told that it causes less side effects.
Yes, this is likely, some people might feel they experience more of the side effect in your example - but mdcc_tester was referring to an actual physiological condition where the placebo effect can't produce a result. Not that I knew his medication was for asthma as he had not mentioned that at that point, but the general idea that 'a lot of what a drug does is down to you' i still don't agree with - or I am still misunderstanding what it is you are saying.
Side effects aren't the same as the dugs intended pupose. . . .
They are exactly the same, that there is an 'effect' and a 'side effect' is just the language we use to highlight the drugs use - there is no difference, both are physiological effects produced by the drug.
For example let's say Viagra lowers blood pressure in pulmonary hypertension patients but carries with it the 'side effect' (in relation to it's intended purpose) of spontaneous erection.
So for pulmonary hypertension patients the leaflet reads:
Sorts your blood pressure out, caution a common side effect is a massive erection.And for erectile dysfunction patients the leaflet reads:
Gives you a massive erection so you can have it off, caution a common side effect is lowered blood pressure.you must have seen the list of possible side effects on any drug packaging, its normally as long as my arm (and i have average arms). For example, a possible side effect of paracetamol is head aches.
Yep, I used to work on them, I worked through the night from (8pm to 2am) laying out the information for Whitehall laboratories various products (and they produce tens of thousands of products) - and proof reading all the side effects.
-
Yes, this is likely, some people might feel they experience more of the side effect in your example - but mdcc_tester was referring to an actual physiological condition where the placebo effect can't produce a result.
Yep, I used to work on them, I worked through the night from (8pm to 2am) laying out the information for Whitehall laboratories various products (and they produce tens of thousands of products) - and proof reading all the side effects.
So we understand that not all people receive the same side effects, and that you may feel that you are getting a side effect when you are not.
This is simply the point i am making. -
ALL the benifits? like endorphines, the sense of acheivement, the community base and friends you can find through excersise, the amazing sense of flying when you run or ride with no effort and a big smile, the way your motivation levels for other things change alongside the exercise/weightloss shebang? etc etc etc? wow, thats a hell of a pill. but if im honest, from a personal viewpoint, yes, id still rather take the real exercise over the pill. thats because i love oto do these things and feel the sensations in my body. but then, if the pill does it all, maybe i'd just have too much free time? hard question. also, i probably wouldnt trust it either. so yes, in this case, there becomes a moral aspect to it.
Absolutely, and although there is nothing wrong with applying a moral aspect to something - when it comes to sorting actual real world facts from opinion it can muddy the waters.
For me the most telling part of what you wrote (and again I am completely open to idea that I have misread this) is that even if this magic pill does all these things you still probably wouldn't trust it either - which takes me back to this idea of the hypothetical group of people who will always find a rationalisation for 'natural' product A over synthesised chemical B regardless of the facts.
on a side note, when i was called for jury service i ended up saying to the person in charge, "if this case is rape or abuse of any sort, they are already guilty in my opinion. i cant be impartial on this, just you know..."
it was a rape case and i got let go. dunno if my confession had anything to do with it or not. just a big glaring example of this....
"I suspect people apply their innate moral compass ...."
Thanks for the tip ! :P
It's strange I was thinking about something similar only recently, that people weight their opinions depending on the gravity of the allegation - rape is obviously frowned upon (it's has got terrible press, I prefer to call it 'surprise sex') so I suspect -* through a tendency in people to translate the 'level' of the crime to the guilt of the accused* - that when someone is accused of rape many in the jury have already made up their minds before they have heard any evidence.
You see this a lot in conspiracy theorists thinking, you only need tell them of some appalling misdeed by the powers-that-be™ and the scale of the crime is enough proof of the accused's guilt.
ha ha, sucker. just like the rest of us... please tell us which ones. if it was islam or christianity i think the world might implode...
Holocaust denial and Judaism, it was an uneasy partnership.
-
So we understand that not all people receive the same side effects, and that you may feel that you are getting a side effect when you are not.
This is simply the point i am making.I understand !!
Sorry it took me so long, my brain actually hurts today, and yes I completely misunderstood your original post.
-
I am completely open to idea that I have misread this) is that even if this magic pill does all these things you still probably wouldn't trust it either
also, i probably wouldnt trust it either
i think we cleared that up then...
Thanks for the tip ! :P
you're welcome
It's strange I was thinking about something similar only recently, that people weight their opinions depending on the gravity of the allegation - rape is obviously frowned upon (it's has got terrible press, I prefer to call it 'surprise sex') so I suspect -* through a tendency in people to translate the 'level' of the crime to the guilt of the accused* - that when someone is accused of rape many in the jury have already made up their minds before they have heard any evidence.
totally. i know i did. and im glad that i was so aware of it.
Seriously . . . 'Vitamin Mega Doses' (Vt 100) and Detox' (Dx 92).
dam i missed those two. that pushes me up to 9 i think...
Holocaust denial and Judaism, it was an uneasy partnership.
paging That Shits Fucked Up.......
-
ny the way that radio show is on now, i clearly got the times wrong. and they are playing mc hammer. actually later in career it was changed to just 'hammer'. and so i should i say they are playing hammer right now.....
-
weirdly there was a long phone sex skit on just then before this awful track...
-
"Weapons of Mass Dilution" is very good.
whatfriends
andy.w
tynan
Spins
n3il
edscoble
evo_
deleted
Oliver Schick-
Post a reply
About
Homeopathy
Posted by
@DFP
I don't misunderstand the placebo effect. Reductions of side effects could be apparent in blind placebo trials. sorry if i wasn't clear.