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.
Let's use me as an example. I take 3 meds full time and 3 as needed.
I am healthy meaning I am at the low end of BMI, I am physically active and eat very healthy.
BUT I have PSA (aggressive arthritis) which has little to do with lifestyle, I have insanely high blood pressure (199/114) for no reason, and low thyroid (either auto immune of due to age).
The biologic wasn't available 10 years ago, and people just became crippled from advancing arthritis. These meds help me maintain a high quality of life.
So I am part of your statistic on how unhealthy people are and taking too many meds. /lol
None of this proves anything, it's anecdotal. But sometimes statistics can lead you down the wrong path.
On the other hand my late husband was a little over weight and chose not take statins and died of a heart attack. He was supposed to try diet changes first, but didn't get the chance.
__________________ ____________________________________________
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
I was just thinking about all the drugs that are so popular, even if they have little or no proven benefit. I wondered why the insurance companies are so happy to pay for them. They won't pay for natural supplements -- but drugs, however expensive, are just fine.
So I thought maybe the drug companies pay the insurance companies to cover the drugs. And I looked it up in Google and what do you know -- drugs companies give big rebates to the insurance companies for covering their drugs.
So, after Phase l, Phase ll, Phase lll and possibly Phase lV testing where developer of the drug MUST prove safety and EFFICACY of any new drug, not to mention that the same must be done in all developed countries, YOU actually believe that drugs have little or no useful value?????
Wow, I guess that I wasted my education and fifty years of practice as a Registered Pharmacist!
I'd bet plenty of MD's use supplements for their own health. When a friend went on my favorite antioxidant years ago, she went to her pharmacist and asked him if it was OK for her, he said by all means, go for it, "I use it myself". And no interference with her heart med (1 pill) whatever that was. She passed at 95 and very little drugs and more supps in the last couple decades of her life.
I'd take that bet and you would lose...
Supplement makers promote an image of being small, ethical, and natural — the exact opposite of evil Big Pharma. Yet the numbers show this is big business: a $30 billion (USD, 2011) industry which (as has been noted regularly at this blog) has limited regulatory oversight. The result is a marketplace with products listing exaggerated claims that aren’t supported by credible evidence. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/who...ments-and-why/
...doctors tend to be wary of supplements and don’t routinely recommend them.
Here are the reasons Avitzur is leery about supplements:
●The benefits are uncertain, and there are few well-controlled studies to support supplements. Many studies don’t take full account of the subjects’ diets, so it’s hard to know whether a benefit really comes from a supplement. https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.483cdf236946
The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified and they should be avoided," the physicians wrote in an editorial published along with the studies.
This message is especially aimed at people who have no signs of nutritional deficiency — meaning most supplement users in the United States, the researchers said. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...y-doctors-say/
So, after Phase l, Phase ll, Phase lll and possibly Phase lV testing where developer of the drug MUST prove safety and EFFICACY of any new drug, not to mention that the same must be done in all developed countries, YOU actually believe that drugs have little or no useful value?????
Wow, I guess that I wasted my education and fifty years of practice as a Registered Pharmacist!
Damn, I could have been an accountant!
There is no evidence showing that statin drugs benefit people who do not already have heart disease, but they are prescribed anyway.
I don' t know who calls big pharma "evil". I never read it here, I don't think. Just because some of us prefer NOT to take them IF we don't have to, I never called them evil. But I did end up in ER due to one at least.
As for prevention, I've been able to prevent I believe many issues. Of course this is Anecdotal and this does not count!! I have not taken an allergy/sinus drug in going on 23 yrs, that doesn't count?
Let's use me as an example. I take 3 meds full time and 3 as needed.
I am healthy meaning I am at the low end of BMI, I am physically active and eat very healthy.
BUT I have PSA (aggressive arthritis) which has little to do with lifestyle, I have insanely high blood pressure (199/114) for no reason, and low thyroid (either auto immune of due to age).
The biologic wasn't available 10 years ago, and people just became crippled from advancing arthritis. These meds help me maintain a high quality of life.
So I am part of your statistic on how unhealthy people are and taking too many meds. /lol
None of this proves anything, it's anecdotal. But sometimes statistics can lead you down the wrong path.
On the other hand my late husband was a little over weight and chose not take statins and died of a heart attack. He was supposed to try diet changes first, but didn't get the chance.
I never said drugs are never useful for anyone. I said they are over-used.
And you have no way of knowing if your husband would have died anyway with statins, or if lifestyle changes may have worked.
And yes, very true, statistics can be misleading. The drug companies often count on people being confused by their statistics.
I never said drugs are never useful for anyone. I said they are over-used.
And you have no way of knowing if your husband would have died anyway with statins, or if lifestyle changes may have worked.
And yes, very true, statistics can be misleading. The drug companies often count on people being confused by their statistics.
There is no confusion when making drugs. Every stroke of the pen, every data figure, every electronic signature has to be verified - there can be no mistakes. Mistakes cause 'deviations' from our known procedures and they automatically launch expensive investigations. To settle a deviation from lets say a missing check signer signature or eye witness signature can cost the company many thousands of dollars and potentially the whole lot of vaccine (maybe a million or more dollars). Nothing will be released to the public until all questions are answered.
Our primary job is to protect the pubic and it comes with a cost. I admit that this is somewhat self serving. If we would release harmful products; we would be out of business very quick. Either the FDA or the market would quickly shut us down.
There is no confusion when making drugs. Every stroke of the pen, every data figure, every electronic signature has to be verified - there can be no mistakes. Mistakes cause 'deviations' from our known procedures and they automatically launch expensive investigations. To settle a deviation from lets say a missing check signer signature or eye witness signature can cost the company many thousands of dollars and potentially the whole lot of vaccine (maybe a million or more dollars). Nothing will be released to the public until all questions are answered.
Our primary job is to protect the pubic and it comes with a cost. I admit that this is somewhat self serving. If we would release harmful products; we would be out of business very quick. Either the FDA or the market would quickly shut us down.
Then the burning question is with all the wisdom and knowledge "they" can't bring us drugs with little or no side effects...maybe they really don't want that.
There is no confusion when making drugs. Every stroke of the pen, every data figure, every electronic signature has to be verified - there can be no mistakes. Mistakes cause 'deviations' from our known procedures and they automatically launch expensive investigations. To settle a deviation from lets say a missing check signer signature or eye witness signature can cost the company many thousands of dollars and potentially the whole lot of vaccine (maybe a million or more dollars). Nothing will be released to the public until all questions are answered.
Our primary job is to protect the pubic and it comes with a cost. I admit that this is somewhat self serving. If we would release harmful products; we would be out of business very quick. Either the FDA or the market would quickly shut us down.
True, they must be careful not to sell anything that would make people drop dead instantly. But nothing prevents them selling stuff that is prescribe to people who will not benefit from it, and probably will be harmed from taking it for decades.
There is plenty of confusion, the result of incessant PR misinformation.
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.
