Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And more than likely that's because they were giving all the credit for their seeming good health to the supplements they were on when who knows if that really made a difference? Then, oops...they're diabetic or have some other chronic illness and the supplements just aren't working any more so time to bring out the "big guns" of medications developed for a particular condition - not just a shotgun approach.
Kind of like when sick people attribute all their symptoms to illness and not the SIDE EFFECTS of all the medications they are taking?
More than not, getting off meds makes people feel BETTER, not worse.
It's all a matter of semantics. I consider "side effects" to be a neutral term. But most people ONLY care about the negative side effects and in terms of liability, that's what lawyers and companies care about too. Of course what is negative is RELATIVE to the individual...something that incidentally lowers BP might be good for people with high BP as long as it's not too much in combination with their other BP medication. Other people who already have low BP would consider this a negative if it lowers their BP further.
What's so hard to understand about any of this? Are you being intentionally obtuse to make some other point? Because you ask this repeatedly here and in other threads. And yayyy - you got some answers but you don't like 'em!
It's not a neutral term. That's why it is usually called ADVERSE effects in the literature. It's a problem/causes harm/something to watch out for. It's not neutral. And can KILL YOU. Something that can cause death? Not neutral.
Your semantics argument is without substance because you are misdefining "side effects."
No, I haven't received a satisfactory answer. Not one I liked/disliked, but one that made sense. All I am getting is people calling me stupid. That's not an answer, lol. That's a personal attack, also without substance. It's what people do when they have NO arguments.
Side effects are anything that occurs that is not the intended result.
They can be good or bad. For some a side effect might be good, for others that same side effect might be bad.
When a side effect is consistent they usually go into testing and then the medicine can be used to achieve that side effect on a regular basis as a treatment for something else.
In the case of Viagra, it was boners.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
More than not, getting off meds makes people feel BETTER, not worse.
Yes, that's why today's life expectancy is so much lower than decades ago because we have so many awful drugs. No, wait.
Why don't people understand that most diseases are normal physiological processes that for some reason have gone awry in certain tissues? Signals for these processes are interchangable in lots of tissues or cells, so if you try to inhibit the signal in affected areas you will automatically inhibit them in healthy cells as well. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the cause of side effects and in most cases there is not a darn thing you can do about it, unless you have a very special disease with unique signals. Which rarely happens except for infections and some rare cancers.
Side effects are anything that occurs that is not the intended result.
They can be good or bad. For some a side effect might be good, for others that same side effect might be bad.
When a side effect is consistent they usually go into testing and then the medicine can be used to achieve that side effect on a regular basis as a treatment for something else.
In the case of Viagra, it was boners.
Completely correct.
My heart medication is designed to slow the heart and prevent irregular beats. It has a positive side effect with blood pressure.
My prostate medicine was developed as a blood pressure medicine. It turned out to be unreliable for that, but helped in terms of benign prostate enlargement.
Yes, that's why today's life expectancy is so much lower than decades ago because we have so many awful drugs. No, wait.
Why don't people understand that most diseases are normal physiological processes that for some reason have gone awry in certain tissues? Signals for these processes are interchangable in lots of tissues or cells, so if you try to inhibit the signal in affected areas you will automatically inhibit them in healthy cells as well. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the cause of side effects and in most cases there is not a darn thing you can do about it, unless you have a very special disease with unique signals. Which rarely happens except for infections and some rare cancers.
Yes life expectancy is longer, although data is skewed. I would not say it is an IMPROVED quality of life.
Ask most people: Would you rather drop dead of a heart attack mowing the lawn at 60, or spend 15 years in and out of hospitals, with reduced motor and cognitive function until you are bedridden and treated like a child by a 20 yr old you don't know who is paid $8/hr to wipe your butt after you poop yourself knowing that your bank account/nest egg has reached zero because of hospital bills/LTC, none of which has improved your quality of life but has just seen to it that you haven't died yet?
Most sensible people would take the heart attack.
If prior life expectancy was calculated at those who were alive at age 10 instead of infancy, it would be comparable to today. Those who lived past childhood generally experienced long life. This, again, is a little fact that is pointedly ignored. Death rates are skewed by infant and childhood mortality. People didn't die at 45 as a general rule, although everyone who hasn't looked into it sure believe it.
Yes life expectancy is longer, although data is skewed. I would not say it is an IMPROVED quality of life.
Ask most people: Would you rather drop dead of a heart attack mowing the lawn at 60, or spend 15 years in and out of hospitals, with reduced motor and cognitive function until you are bedridden and treated like a child by a 20 yr old you don't know who is paid $8/hr to wipe your butt after you poop yourself knowing that your bank account/nest egg has reached zero because of hospital bills/LTC, none of which has improved your quality of life but has just seen to it that you haven't died yet?
Most sensible people would take the heart attack.
If prior life expectancy was calculated at those who were alive at age 10 instead of infancy, it would be comparable to today. Those who lived past childhood generally experienced long life. This, again, is a little fact that is pointedly ignored. Death rates are skewed by infant and childhood mortality. People didn't die at 45 as a general rule, although everyone who hasn't looked into it sure believe it.
You've given two extremes, and that is not the only choices, or even backed up by anything besides your opinion.
I posted earlier on the life expectancy in the US.
What data is your belief that people do not have a better quality of life based on? I'll agree that we have a huge obesity problem, and that begets medical problems, but that is a lifestyle issue and not medical.
Maybe in your area there is trouble with older people being ill. Not mine. Heck my mother is 75 and goes camping every year. My state has one of the highest quality of life for the elderly.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
You've given two extremes, and that is not the only choices, or even backed up by anything besides your opinion.
I posted earlier on the life expectancy in the US.
What data is your belief that people do not have a better quality of life based on? I'll agree that we have a huge obesity problem, and that begets medical problems, but that is a lifestyle issue and not medical.
Maybe in your area there is trouble with older people being ill. Not mine. Heck my mother is 75 and goes camping every year. My state has one of the highest quality of life for the elderly.
And this is dated, don't have time to look up current figures.
$353 BILLION A YEAR
That's a lot of people who can't care for themselves. Great quality of life.
I guess $353 billion is my opinion? I'd guess using your mom as an example is an opinion. Not a financially backed projection of revenue by an industry publication.
And this is dated, don't have time to look up current figures.
$353 BILLION A YEAR
That's a lot of people who can't care for themselves. Great quality of life.
I guess $353 billion is my opinion? I'd guess using your mom as an example is an opinion. Not a financially backed projection of revenue by an industry publication.
Your using numbers across a whole industry... that means nothing.
Did you also notice the growth numbers dropped between 2005 and 2015?
Also, this makes perfect sense as the Baby Boomer generation is aging (the largest generation group).
I don't think needing medical care and assistance automatically means a poor quality of life. So if someone breaks their leg, let's just not help them because now their quality of life is poor?
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
