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.
The risk of serious adverse effects of the vast majority of drugs is far less than 1%. For Cipro, for example, the risk of tendon rupture is about 3 in 100,000 people who take it.
Your last sentence should be, "Why shouldn't everyone who wants access to drugs and medical treatments chip in for a fund to pay for treatment of complications?"
I would have no problem with that. It could be set up like the vaccine compensation fund. No lawsuits required if the adverse event is one that is a recognized consequence of the drug or treatment.
Sounds like we almost agree on this. The added benefit for covering the treatment for the 1% who are harmed, is that there will be more data on side effects, how to identify which types of people should not take a particular medication and possible improvements in doctor training for a procedure, etc.
And how many doctors EVER explain the AEs for the drugs they prescribe? Any? None?
How many ever KNOW about the AEs of the drugs they prescribe? I'm guessing very, very few. Because they are taught: Drugs are safe. They don;t hurt people. So they never look for any injuries after the drugs have been taken.
When you pick up prescriptions, you sign the little box that says the pharmacist explained the drug to you. How many pharmacists actually take the time to explain the drug?
I realize you are frustrated with your inability to counter what I say, but it is not true that I pretend to care. That is your opinion of me, and that is fine. You are welcome to it. Anyone who "listened to their doctor and took it in blind faith" failed to do his due diligence. Anyone who takes any medication or undergoes any medical treatment needs to be fully informed of the benefits and risks, and that is a two-way street. The doctor needs to provide the info and the patient needs to listen and ask questions. It is only "blind faith" if you let it be.
On this point, I think you're preaching to the choir here. Several of us ARE the ones who research and question. We aren't the ones on this thread who say "why go to the doctor if you're not going to do what he says?" or "I trust science."
We know from real life that we can be the 1% so we do take this more seriously than some others.
I would never want to blame that patient though, unless the research showed that something in their physiological make up, that they were aware of, would raise their risk for that adverse effect.
Patients sometimes see multiple doctors for different conditions. Every one of them should have a list of all the medications a patient takes.
Besides other conditions, my husband was taking a drug for his knee problems. He recently had a pacemaker put in and is taking a new medication with that and was told he cannot take that drug for his knee with that other medication for his heart. Sorry, I do not know the names of all the pills he takes. Must I?
At any rate, my husband now wears a knee brace instead. He said the brace is working fine for him. Isn't that a better solution that adding to ever growing list of drugs, or surgery?
Isn't Paul Offit the Pediatrician who said that a child could be given 10,000 vaccines without any harmful effects? Surely, that was a sarcastic statement. Not funny.
Patients sometimes see multiple doctors for different conditions. Every one of them should have a list of all the medications a patient takes.
Besides other conditions, my husband was taking a drug for his knee problems. He recently had a pacemaker put in and is taking a new medication with that and was told he cannot take that drug for his knee with that other medication for his heart. Sorry, I do not know the names of all the pills he takes. Must I?
At any rate, my husband now wears a knee brace instead. He said the brace is working fine for him. Isn't that a better solution that adding to ever growing list of drugs, or surgery?
Isn't Paul Offit the Pediatrician who said that a child could be given 10,000 vaccines without any harmful effects? Surely, that was a sarcastic statement. Not funny.
Every doctor I've ever seen makes it a routine to ask patients for their list of medications. Now whether or not they all actually look at those lists is anyone's guess. But they do ask for access to that information.
Every doctor I've ever seen makes it a routine to ask patients for their list of medications. Now whether or not they all actually look at those lists is anyone's guess. But they do ask for access to that information.
Every doctor's appointment, every doctor, goes over that list with me, asks about changes in dosage, additions, subtractions.
I think Jo's point was she doesn't want to have to remember, she wants an automated system.
Most of my doctors ARE on an automated system.... they go over the list anyway, and I prefer that.
__________________ ____________________________________________
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
On this point, I think you're preaching to the choir here. Several of us ARE the ones who research and question. We aren't the ones on this thread who say "why go to the doctor if you're not going to do what he says?" or "I trust science."
We know from real life that we can be the 1% so we do take this more seriously than some others.
I would never want to blame that patient though, unless the research showed that something in their physiological make up, that they were aware of, would raise their risk for that adverse effect.
Her meaning is: Only if you ask if drugs are good and then listen to the doctor. Researching on your own? Coming up with an opinion that differs from hers? That isn't what she is talking about. She's talking about just repeating and listening to what the doc says, and then doing what the doc tells you to do.
Because no one is in that 1% ever, it's a myth, and saying you are, well, you're just a liar. /facepalm/ And this is true, because anytime anyone mentions a personal experience, she posts a gazillion links to dispute what happened to you. Because she *knows* it couldn't possibly have happened. The articles say so.
And how many doctors EVER explain the AEs for the drugs they prescribe? Any? None?
How many ever KNOW about the AEs of the drugs they prescribe? I'm guessing very, very few. Because they are taught: Drugs are safe. They don;t hurt people. So they never look for any injuries after the drugs have been taken.
When you pick up prescriptions, you sign the little box that says the pharmacist explained the drug to you. How many pharmacists actually take the time to explain the drug?
Really?? Is that what YOU learned in Medical School??
Maybe you just slept through Pharmacology then....
Making ridiculous, unfounded claims doesn't strengthen your argument...makes it look very weak in fact.
As for the pharmacist, every pharmacist I know is more than willing to spend whatever time a patient wants reviewing medication risks and potential side effects.
When you check that box you are stating you had the OPPORTUNITY to review the medication with the pharmacist, if you chose not to take advantage that's on YOU...
Again, you've said: If a drug HARMS or KILLS someone, it is the PERSON'S FAULT. Not the drug manufacturer.
And if the person does NOT want to be harmed, they shouldn't take the drug.
And yet you still demand people get vaccines and get no compensation for any injuries, because well vaccines don't harm people. Like, I can say car accidents don't happen. i can repeat that all the live-long day. Doesn't make it true.
You can post links till the cows come home, but that statement in bold is 100% accurate. And you repeat it, every time you post links trying to say you care. You don't. Keep digging your hole.
Obviously no one wants to be harmed by a drug, but any drug can cause harm, even over the counter products like aspirin, acetominophen, and ibuprofen. If they cannot accept the risk of an adverse event from taking a drug, then they should ot take it,
No, I never said it is "the PERSON'S FAULT". If it is due to a difference in that person's body chemistry that is beyond the control of that person, it is obviously not the person's "fault".
If the person is the one in a million that has that particular body chemistry and is the only one who experiences an adverse reaction to the drug - a vaccine, for example - it's not the fault of the drug, either.
I do not "demand people get vaccines and get no compensation for any injuries, because well vaccines don't harm people." I have never claimed vaccines are 100% safe, and I support the existence of the vaccine compensation fund. What I do not support - and what you want - is for vaccine makers to be sued for things that are not caused by vaccines. That includes autism.
I care. I care about vaccines in particular because I know what happens when vaccination rates drop. That is why I will continue to counter everyone who tries to blame vaccines for things that are not caused by vaccines. That includes autism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
And how many doctors EVER explain the AEs for the drugs they prescribe? Any? None?
How many ever KNOW about the AEs of the drugs they prescribe? I'm guessing very, very few. Because they are taught: Drugs are safe. They don;t hurt people. So they never look for any injuries after the drugs have been taken.
When you pick up prescriptions, you sign the little box that says the pharmacist explained the drug to you. How many pharmacists actually take the time to explain the drug?
No doctor is going to explain every side effect that has ever been reported for every drug. They should discuss serious adverse effects, and the ones I know do. If you want to know and you do not ask the doctor or the pharmacist then that is indeed on you.
Every prescription I get - even refills for meds I have been on for a long time - comes with patient info. If you do not read that, then that is on you, too.
There is absolutely no reason for a patient to be uninformed about his medications or any treatment he receives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG
On this point, I think you're preaching to the choir here. Several of us ARE the ones who research and question. We aren't the ones on this thread who say "why go to the doctor if you're not going to do what he says?" or "I trust science."
We know from real life that we can be the 1% so we do take this more seriously than some others.
I would never want to blame that patient though, unless the research showed that something in their physiological make up, that they were aware of, would raise their risk for that adverse effect.
Unfortunately, for many adverse effects there is no way to know ahead of time that a person is at increased risk.
However, that is changing through a modality called genomics. It is possible to identify some genetic factors that affect drug metabolism.
Patients sometimes see multiple doctors for different conditions. Every one of them should have a list of all the medications a patient takes.
Isn't Paul Offit the Pediatrician who said that a child could be given 10,000 vaccines without any harmful effects? Surely, that was a sarcastic statement. Not funny.
Patients should also consider using only one drugstore, so the pharmacist can monitor for drug interactions.
Dr. Offit said a child could theoretically respond to 10,000 vaccines, based on a calculation of how the immune system mounts such a response. He was not advocating giving 10,000 shots to a child, which is the way the anti-vaxers like to attack what he said.
Her meaning is: Only if you ask if drugs are good and then listen to the doctor. Researching on your own? Coming up with an opinion that differs from hers? That isn't what she is talking about. She's talking about just repeating and listening to what the doc says, and then doing what the doc tells you to do.
Because no one is in that 1% ever, it's a myth, and saying you are, well, you're just a liar. /facepalm/ And this is true, because anytime anyone mentions a personal experience, she posts a gazillion links to dispute what happened to you. Because she *knows* it couldn't possibly have happened. The articles say so.
If you do not agree with what the articles say, why not find evidence to show the material in the articles is wrong?
Tell me you caught shingles from someone who had the shingles vaccine and I will explain why that cannot happen.
Tell me a vaccine caused your child's autism and I will show you the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.
Tell me your granddaughter got fluorosis from topical fluoride when she was a teenager, after her braces were removed, and I will show you that fluorosis can only happen when the teeth are forming, before they erupt through the gums, and the white spots on your granddaughter's teeth are due to less than perfect toothbrushing while she was wearing her braces.
Researching on your own is hazardous if you do not vet your sources, and anecdotes, no matter how many of them you come up with, whether they are your own experiences or experiences of others, are not data. They can never prove cause and effect.
I never call anyone a liar. I will call him misinformed, which is what happens when you use bad sources.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 08-06-2018 at 06:26 PM..
If you do not agree with what the articles say, why not find evidence to show the material in the articles is wrong?
Tell me you caught shingles from someone who had the shingles vaccine and I will explain why that cannot happen.
Tell me a vaccine caused your child's autism and I will show you the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism.
Tell me your granddaughter got fluorosis from topical fluoride when she was a teenager, after her braces were removed, and I will show you that fluorosis can only happen when the teeth are forming, before they erupt through the gums, and the white spots on your granddaughter's teeth are due to less than perfect toothbrushing while she was wearing her braces.
Researching on your own is hazardous if you do not vet your sources, and anecdotes, no matter how many of them you come up with, whether they are your own experiences or experiences of others, are not data. They can never prove cause and effect.
I never call anyone a liar. I will call him misinformed, which is what happens when you use bad sources.
But this is where you lose your credibility. You tell posters that what has happened in their real lives didn't happen because of research you read online. You're not with our families, discussing the issues with our doctors, dentists, surgeons, etc. We're not looking up "bad sources" online, we are in hospitals and doctor's offices. You dismiss both the unintended adverse effects from standard medical care and the positive effects from alternative care.
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.
