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.
Mike1003 --- I believe you said you are a pharmacist. Right.
Just thinking about the oxycodone that so many are given and especially after surgeries. I was taking it for 2.5 months for the knee infection issue and my friend just had a hip replacement at 90, and she took it for a short time and then refused and took 2 extra strength tylenol to help her thru PT work. We know the side effects of this drug, one major one constipation.
She took a baggy of magnesium in her purse and took it and I had my friends buy me bottles to have in the rehabs. The major s/e's are constipation and loss of appetite, I lost 30 lbs in first rehab and of course fatigue, unbelievable.
My system is still messed up and I've been challenged with sluggish bowels all my life and it's a long life.
Anyway, WHY oh WHY can't the drug producers add some magnesium to these tablets and help people who have to take this oxy. Many just don't know to ask for mag but I do and I did. But everytime I asked for it, it went on my medicare bill. So I had some brought to me by friends.
This sounds like an easy fix to me, but maybe too easy.
Thought I'd ask a pharmacist and see what kind of response I receive. thanks
I was hoping to hear from Mike1003 on what seems like an easy fix of sorts on this major constipation issue with oxy.
What I said was I see no reason to suspect that "cancer" - which is more than one disease - has changed. There is no reason to suspect that epigenetic mechanisms were not in play in the past. Just because they are only now being characterized does not mean they are new, only that we did not know about them before.
I don't know why this has to be so difficult, nor why my comments keep being misconstrued.
Let me attempt, once again, to be completely clear.
Cancer has always been among us, in various forms and manifestations. I never said otherwise.
Our ancient ancestors knew quite a bit about cancer. In fact, they could distinguish between benign and malicious tumors.
I think I gave you quite an involved response, which indicates that I did take our conversation seriously. I'm not sure what you mean by taking you seriously. Seriously as what? I think it would behoove you to learn the science. You seem to have enough interest in it and a pretty good general grasp of why side effects arise.
I never said you didn't take the conversation seriously. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You've expressed to me in very clear terms that you think I'm a pseudoscientist who doesn't know what she's talking about. Therefore, everything I say is discounted. I don't believe another detailed response from me would change anything.
You have, after all, fallen down a rabbit hole, remember?
I never said you didn't take the conversation seriously. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You've expressed to me in very clear terms that you think I'm a pseudoscientist who doesn't know what she's talking about. Therefore, everything I say is discounted. I don't believe another detailed response from me would change anything.
You have, after all, fallen down a rabbit hole, remember?
I did not discount everything you said. Quite the opposite. Look, you are using your own language and what you mean with some of your words has to be deciphered. That's on you. I responded to it anyway and also asked clearly if I was following. That's the rabbit hole.
I don't know what you expect. Are you really purporting to understand the science? Really? If I'm wrong then I have no problem being corrected. Either way, that I don't fancy you a pharma scientist doesn't inhibit me from reading. I still see your words and if you say something that is on point I'll see it and know it. But, I don't think that's why you won't discuss the details. And by detail I don't mean motivating enzymes, gaps, and cellular systems, but a sober review of the literature and an understanding of the mechanistics involved with the pathology and pharmacology that will allow for a productive conversation.
I did not discount everything you said. Quite the opposite. Look, you are using your own language and what you mean with some of your words has to be deciphered. That's on you. I responded to it anyway and also asked clearly if I was following. That's the rabbit hole.
I don't know what you expect. Are you really purporting to understand the science? Really? If I'm wrong then I have no problem being corrected. Either way, that I don't fancy you a pharma scientist doesn't inhibit me from reading. I still see your words and if you say something that is on point I'll see it and know it. But, I don't think that's why you won't discuss the details. And by detail I don't mean motivating enzymes, gaps, and cellular systems, but a sober review of the literature and an understanding of the mechanistics involved with the pathology and pharmacology that will allow for a productive conversation.
And yet again I'm accused of being uneducated. You see my personal vocabulary as a sign that I don't read pharma journals.
We can't have a productive conversation because you will not go one reply without insulting me.
I think it's a big stretch to say that a Large Portion of supplement companies are owned by pharma.
I can think of quite a few who do not sell out. Perhaps the ones who sell from drug stores, walmart, costco and the like but not those like Jarrow, Now Foods, Pure Formulas and many more.
So many broad and exaggerated statements made by many here.
I think it's a big stretch to say that a Large Portion of supplement companies are owned by pharma.
I can think of quite a few who do not sell out. Perhaps the ones who sell from drug stores, walmart, costco and the like but not those like Jarrow, Now Foods, Pure Formulas and many more.
So many broad and exaggerated statements made by many here.
And yet again I'm accused of being uneducated. You see my personal vocabulary as a sign that I don't read pharma journals.
We can't have a productive conversation because you will not go one reply without insulting me.
Quote:
In fact, there is a sizable population of people who get no help from such laxatives -- and even among those who receive a benefit from it, nobody knows the toll it is taking on their enzyme supply.
I don't understand what this means either- the toll it is taking on their enzyme supply. Are you suggesting that enzymes are used up in reactions?
If herbs did not work there would be no human race. We'd have all been dead 1000X over.
Stop ignoring history and LOOK into how medical schools came about, who funded them , why they were so THREATENED by natural cures that they had to eliminate them. You don't know your history. People did not want western medicine. They avoided it at all costs until the industry essentially drove home remedies to the background.
If it's one thing I've learned along the way, most older doctors and nurses use folk medicine/herbs/supplements for themselves. Why? Two reasons: Because they work without harming the body, and because they have spent 20+ years watching what medications due to patients.
The fact that the human race has persevered does not mean herbal remedies are responsible. Plenty of our forebears had lines that died out. Home remedies have not been driven out by "western medicine", which is now practiced worldwide. If they had, we would not have the multibillion dollar supplement industry, whose lobbying efforts seem to have been ignored in this discussion. People adopted "western medicine" when it was obvious it worked better than folk remedies.
Please provide evidence that "most older doctors and nurses use folk medicine/herbs/supplements for themselves." Do not include those treating things like vitamin D and B12 deficiencies that have been documented by measuring them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
There are 100,000+ deaths EVERY YEAR from properly used, properly prescribed and properly taken medications. Dead. People DEAD.
Barbara Starfield, Is US Health Care Really the Best In the World? Journal of American Medical Association
How many deaths directly attributed to supplement use or illegal drug use? Much. much less. Supplement use you can count on one hand and illegal drug overdoses clock in at about 30,000 a year.Prescription drugs cause more deaths when used PROPERLY.
As has been pointed out, lumping non-error adverse effects of drugs in with errors is problematic when you do not know what the drugs used and diseases being treated are. In addition, the study that developed that figure extrapolated from a very small number of people.
The number of supplement deaths is not known. Those tend to get reported to poison control centers, not the FDA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Every time a needle biopsy is done, it move cells around, which can promote new cancer growth. Mammograms have a 60% false positive rate. So a women who does not have breast cancer can get diagnosed with breast cancer, get radiation/chemo and THEN get secondary cancers from the treatment. So she gets cancer even though she was perfectly healthy to begin with.
Most people die from the treatment of cancer than the cancer itself. That means, that yes, they would have died from cancer eventually. But the combo of surgery/chemo/radiation kills them quicker.
Think about it.
1 Shock the body with trauma (surgery),
2 followed by severely immunosupressive drugs that do not allow it to heal and invite all bacteria and viruses in, backstage pass no blockers, get the person sick as possible with all sorts of infections
3 add in the vomiting that chemo causes so no food can be digested for strength to fight off pathogens,
4 then radiate, which causes secondary cancer (that's why everyone always leaves the room)
That's why the survival rate is clocked at 5 years after diagnoses. They KNOW after five years, people start dying. It's shocking to me that people still don't question this process.
No, more people do not die from treatment for cancer than from the cancer itself. Such a treatment would never even be approved. You keep repeating this little mantra when the numbers prove you wrong. There are just too many people walking around who have been treated and have no evidence of disease many years later. As you have been told, no one is treated for breast cancer just on the basis of a mammogram. A biopsy showing cancer is 100% essential first.
Secondary cancers can happen, but they are not the norm. The risk of spreading a cancer with a biopsy is also remote. As you have been told above, the resulting treatment after the biopsy would be expected to reduce that risk even further. Chemotherapy is used to reduce the risk of recurrence after surgery for breast cancer, for example. That is because there may already be microscopic metastases from the tumor present at the time of diagnosis, but it would also catch any stray cells dislodged by the biopsy. You are trying to make remote possibilities sound like absolute certainties.
The five year interval is chosen because after that point the number of deaths from the disease drops off, exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
The average 5 year survival rate is 90% and 10 year 83%. That means that of those alive at five years, 83 divided by 90 = 92.2% are alive five years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissRedThumb
I don't know why this has to be so difficult, nor why my comments keep being misconstrued.
Let me attempt, once again, to be completely clear.
Cancer has always been among us, in various forms and manifestations. I never said otherwise.
Our ancient ancestors knew quite a bit about cancer. In fact, they could distinguish between benign and malicious tumors.
We have old records of doctors diagnosing internal cancers many centuries ago. It's an absolute myth that "we did know about them before".
Generational changes to the human race (via epigenetics) are not creating new cancers, simply making them harder to treat.
What I said we did not know about before is epigenetic changes. It seems you misconstrued what I said. Just because we are only now being able to describe epigenetics does not mean that epigenetics is something new.
Cancer is also a disease of aging. If we could look at every Egyptian who died 2000 years ago and determine whether or not he had any type of cancer we would find many fewer cancers, because fewer lived to be old enough to develop them.
You still have not provided any evidence that "Generational changes to the human race (via epigenetics) are not creating new cancers, simply making them harder to treat".
In fact, it appears that in humans there are evolutionary mechanisms to reduce the chance that any epigenetic effects are passed to the next generation.
"Although inter-generational effects (such as maternal effects) certainly occur in mammals, the degree to which they can be transmitted in the absence of the initial trigger remains unclear. In mammals efficient reprogramming occurs in the early embryo and in the germ line (Box 2). These two rounds of epigenetic erasure leave little chance for inheritance of epigenetic marks, whether programmed, accidental or environmentally induced (Fig. 2A). Thus, although transmission of acquired states can occur in some animals (such as nematodes), proof that transgenerational inheritance has an epigenetic basis is generally lacking in mammals. Indeed, evolution appears to have gone to great lengths to ensure the efficient undoing of any potentially deleterious bookmarking that a parent's lifetime experience may have imposed."
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.
