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.
Yes, kiddos to her. I am 68 and take no scripts, or supplements either. Last I took a Tylenol was 2 years ago with a toothache. Antibiotic for 10 days count? The Pill 35 years count? We Seniors not taking ANY meds do exist. 10% unfortunately.
My mother takes BP and cholesterol. My dad was on insulin, BP, and some other things. It did extend his life a good ten years. They were good years too.
BP under control with allopathic drug.
Thyroid supported with desiccated thyroid also allopathic drug.
OA that started in my body at 18 and I'll be 79, handled mostly with supps and OTC pain meds.
That's an amazing array?
I haven't had a headache in decades and probably due to grape seed ex, a supplement.
No more allergy and sinus issues in decades due to grape seed extract.
Allison, since you think I live with an amazing array, how about you, any health issues?
And there are some things supplements just can't help ENOUGH.
I don't know how to go back and summarize or list your previous posts about health issues or I would do so. Seemed like a lot of your messages were asking about such and so supplements to treat various conditions you have, what various media doctors, articles, or "experts" suggest will help with these conditions. The posts describing complications you ended up with after hospitalizations or procedures. Kinda lost track.
As for supplements not helping enough...well, doesn't this beg the argument that a properly targeted prescription can step in?
Since you ask, my health complaint list at 62 is short...OA and serotonin uptake instability. Oh yes, there is the cancer that's been in remission for about 25 years...
There were 1.3 million visits to the emergency room last year as the result of adverse effects to prescription medications. The first thing the doctor on the show said is that doctors absolutely over-prescribe medications.
Which medications? Are they drugs used only for serious conditions, like blood thinners and diabetes medications? How many are for opioid abuse? How many were for minor things like skin rashes - for which an ER visit was not even needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
And yet the pharmaceutical companies spend far more money on advertising than they do on research and development. Shows where their priorities are.
No, they do not. The people who are making that claim use budget numbers that include more than just marketing.
"That's a total for 2010 of more than $31 billion [for marketing], the best guess-timate we can come up with on short notice. According to FierceBiotech's 2010 R&D spending report, the industry shelled out $67 billion on research that year--more than twice our quick-and-dirty marketing estimate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG
And that data should be collected and shared with consumers and physicians so we can make better decisions.
And I do believe the pharmaceutical companies should pay for these visits. They already know through testing that a certain percentage of users will be harmed. They should have a fund set up, like I've heard that the vaccine manufacturers do, who adamantly say their products aren't harmful. If the side effects become too costly, then they would have better information and the financial incentive to change formulations, do additional testing to prevent patients from being harmed or give more information to physicians.
The decision to use any medication is based on a discussion of benefits and risks at the time the prescription is written. By taking the medication you agree to accept the risks. Why should the maker of the drug have to pay you for a disclosed risk that you knew about when you took the drug? Should the maker have to pay for a risk that does not show up until after the drug is marketed and it did not know about when you took it?
No one says there are no risks to vaccines; however, they are small. Severe adverse reactions to vaccines are on the order of one in a million doses.
The vaccine compensation fund is financed by a tax on each dose of vaccine. Ultimately that is paid by people who use vaccines, as the cost is passed on to them.
Post marketing studies are done. If severe adverse effects are discovered, that information is passed on to the FDA and doctors are notified. Then doctor and patient can discuss them and re-evaluate the risk to benefit ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Vaccine manufacturers do NOT HAVE A FUND SET UP. That is false. Vaccine manufacturers pay NOTHING. They are never brought to court, never pay damages and are never accused directly and never have to defend themselves. They have 100% immunity. Nice gig, eh? I'm sure other industries would love that business practice.
People who get vaccines pay a TAX on the vaccine that goes into the fund. If someone is hurt, if they are able to get a doctor to agree that the vaccine caused harm (which is nearly impossible) can make it into the private arbitration (it's not a *real* court), and actually win, they then have to sign CA so they will never talk about what happened or how much money they were awarded.
Vaccine makers do not have "100% immunity." They can still be sued if a vaccine is defective. What they cannot be sued for are adverse reactions that are not due to a defect in the product. If you react negatively to a vaccine and 999,999 other people who got the same vaccine do not have an adverse reaction, the problem is your physiology, not the vaccine.
The vaccine court is a very real court. People who disagree with a claim decision can potentially appeal all the way to SCOTUS. It is not "private arbitration." I can find no evidence that confidentiality agreements are required. Attorneys who obtain those awards regularly reveal the amounts of the awards. The vaccine court provides the opportunity for people who have adverse reactions to vaccines to be compensated without having to risk losing a jury case against the manufacturer. They do not even have to prove the vaccine caused the problem, only that it might have.
Claims that are for certain adverse reactions will be covered. For others, there must be some evidence that the vaccine was causative. Attorney fees are not paid out of claim awards. They are paid separately and are paid even if a claim is denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG
I still believe if a company has research that shows that 2% of users will require hospitalization when using their product as directed, they should be required to put funds aside to cover those patients' damages.
No, patients who take the drug accept the risks that go with it, including expenses of dealing with adverse effects. In order to get the company to pay you would have to show they concealed the risk (which usually gets the company in trouble eventually) or that the product was defective. All drugs have side effects, which may vary from mild to severe. The mere presence of side effects does not mean the drug is defective.
Here's a website that shows how much money doctors received from pharmaceutical companies. Ironically, the doctor who absolutely refused to write me a script for desiccated thyroid received $147,750. I'm sure none of that came from the manufacturer of Synthroid, which is the ONLY option she would give me. $140,060 of that just so happened to be from Synthroid. Gee, what a coincidence.
For the record, I went to another endo who put me on WP Thyroid (desiccated thyroid, also prescription). Retested at 6 months, and my thyroid numbers went from not good to "optimal." Funny considering that it doesn't work according to the doc who would only prescribe Synthroid.
I'm not saying all prescription drugs are bad. I take some. My kids are vaccinated. But I think pharma companies see dollar signs more than patients. I also think there are natural options that people can try for certain conditions first. I think doctors need to be better trained on them and suggest them more often. They are usually much less expensive, and many are effective for a lot of people. I will also say that these don't come without risks either.
Linzess works by targeting and stimulating an obscure enzyme in your intestines. This is assuming that 1) your body is producing this enzyme, 2) you make enough of it to be noticeable, and 3) your enzyme is capable of responding to motivation.
Say there's a patient who has colon paralysis from nerve trauma. Or they have some genetic failure so that they don't make the enzyme. Their doctor gives them Linzess, and nothing happens.
Should we take that to mean Linzess "doesn't work"? No, it works exactly the way its creators intended. But in this case it's a square peg going in a round hole. The patient reports no progress, they say the drug "doesn't work," and their doctor resumes going down the list of other laxatives that all work on pretty much the same mechanics. After a while, the doctor will run out of ideas, and they will either tell the patient to live in misery or to get psychotherapy.
A lot of effort would be involved to see if that patient is genetically capable of making the enzyme. As of now, there isn't a simple test to find that enzyme in lab work.
Body chemistry is a cellular thing, but most of our drugs are hitting tissue on the assumption they can find a handy receptor somewhere.
Here's a website that shows how much money doctors received from pharmaceutical companies. Ironically, the doctor who absolutely refused to write me a script for desiccated thyroid received $147,750. I'm sure none of that came from the manufacturer of Synthroid, which is the ONLY option she would give me. $140,060 of that just so happened to be from Synthroid. Gee, what a coincidence.
For the record, I went to another endo who put me on WP Thyroid (desiccated thyroid, also prescription). Retested at 6 months, and my thyroid numbers went from not good to "optimal." Funny considering that it doesn't work according to the doc who would only prescribe Synthroid.
I'm not saying all prescription drugs are bad. I take some. My kids are vaccinated. But I think pharma companies see dollar signs more than patients. I also think there are natural options that people can try for certain conditions first. I think doctors need to be better trained on them and suggest them more often. They are usually much less expensive, and many are effective for a lot of people. I will also say that these don't come without risks either.
I'd like to hear from others and hope this is a good spot for this discussion. It's not welcome in the health area. Am I naive to think they can't or is it they won't. I've thought of this subject for many years.
I don't know IF there is an answer to this question.
The answer is that there is literally NOTHING you can put in your body that doesn't have an unintended or useless or potentially dangerous side effect.
It stands to figure that potent chemicals designed to exert a defined effect would be difficult to create keeping every single other outcome in mind. Especially since the body is not a machine and strange, unpredictable things do happen.
Linzess works by targeting and stimulating an obscure enzyme in your intestines. This is assuming that 1) your body is producing this enzyme, 2) you make enough of it to be noticeable, and 3) your enzyme is capable of responding to motivation.
Say there's a patient who has colon paralysis from nerve trauma. Or they have some genetic failure so that they don't make the enzyme. Their doctor gives them Linzess, and nothing happens.
Should we take that to mean Linzess "doesn't work"? No, it works exactly the way its creators intended. But in this case it's a square peg going in a round hole. The patient reports no progress, they say the drug "doesn't work," and their doctor resumes going down the list of other laxatives that all work on pretty much the same mechanics. After a while, the doctor will run out of ideas, and they will either tell the patient to live in misery or to get psychotherapy.
A lot of effort would be involved to see if that patient is genetically capable of making the enzyme. As of now, there isn't a simple test to find that enzyme in lab work.
Body chemistry is a cellular thing, but most of our drugs are hitting tissue on the assumption they can find a handy receptor somewhere.
Which enzyme are you referring to? CGMP protein kinase?
This is the mechanism of action I'm reading about
Quote:
MECHANISM OF ACTION
Linaclotide is a first-in-class, 14-amino acid peptide of the guanylin peptide family and acts as a selective agonist at the guanylate cyclase–C (GC–C) receptor on the luminal surface of intestinal enterocytes. The endogenous ligands of GC–C (guanylin peptide hormones guanylin and uroguanylin) bind to the receptor to promote intestinal secretions in response to a meal. Activation of GC–C by guanylin peptides, including linaclotide, results in increased levels of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), a second messenger that plays a critical role in the regulation and secretion of intestinal fluid.16–19
Elevation of intracellular cGMP triggers the activation of cGMP protein kinase and subsequent phosphorylation of downstream targets, including the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) ion channel. Activation of the CFTR channel results in increased secretion of chloride and bicarbonate ions into the intestinal lumen, culminating in increased intestinal fluid secretion and accelerated GI transit.
In rodent models of visceral hypersensitivity, linaclotide reduced intestinal pain, probably a result of a desensitization of afferent pain fibers mediated by activation of GC–C.20,21 Therefore, GC–C is emerging as a therapeutic target for the treatment of IBS–C and CIC as a result of its dual role in accelerating GI transit and decreasing abdominal pain.
Also, what I think you are really talking about is personalized medicine. Systemic is not the correct word for what you were saying. Personalized medicine is most certainly the goal, but we're not there yet.
Part of the problem today is that Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act which allows the FDA to Fast Track drugs and vaccines if there is a "crisis". What is considered a crisis? Two vaccines I know of are Zika and Lyme vaccines. What normally might take 5 years in trials can now be done in maybe 2 years with FDA approval. Who does this benefits the most, people or the Pharms?
What this means is that less time, and money, will be spent on trials before they are approved. If there are fewer human volunteers, that also means they won't be able to spot as many adverse reactions.
That legislation is not a "problem"; it is designed to produce solutions to problems, hopefully more efficiently
Yes, Fast Track is designed to get drugs for serious conditions through the approval process faster.
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.
