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 me make something clear, though. I have nothing against doctors. Most I know, or know of, are dedicated, hard-working professionals who would never knowingly do something to harm a patient. They have the best of intentions, but they are products of medical schools, which are too often too closely linked to pharmaceutical companies. The young doctors coming out can only doctor the way they've been trained to doctor and these days, that means what I think is an over-reliance on drugs.
I have many experiences and examples. I never took any of the drugs that almost everyone seems to be on (anti-depressants, blood pressure and cholesterol lowering), but my mother has been on them since she was young. I and talk to people about their prescription drug experiences. Some are pretty amazing.
For example, a woman in her 40s has been on drugs for anxiety for a long time. This resulted in a heart problem, so they gave her a drug for that. In turn, she got other symptoms and diseases. She is constantly going to doctors and getting tests.
If they told her in the first place that the best "medicine" for anxiety is regular aerobic exercise, she would probably be healthy and happy by now.
They had my mother on bp meds and statins for many years, and eventually she could hardly move her legs to walk. And her formerly mild mental illness became severe and incapacitating -- I don't know if that was related to the bp meds and statins, but quite possibly.
So she had to go on anti-depressants, which eventually contributed to memory loss. Of course the memory loss is probably also related to the hypertension she had all her life, in spite of the bp drugs. But who knows.
My mother was still young when they put her on all that stuff. Her high bp was probably lifestyle-related, since it almost always is. But instead of recommending more exercise and a better diet, she got pills.
My mother is 87 now, so the drugs did not kill her. But she would probably be healthier and able to function now if her MDs had been more holistic. And the same is true of the average middle aged and older American.
MDs think these drugs are keeping people alive, although usually in pretty bad condition. But we really don't know if they would have been better or worse without the drugs. I think the drugs cause more diseases than they cure..
My husband's blood sugar levels were going up which is concern as his mother died after a "doctor" told her to drink a glass of sugar water. So, we did what we were told; tried to watch the sugar and carbs, and ride our bikes, but it really wasn't that much of a help.
I asked my dermatologist for a vitamin D test but she laughed at me told me we live in CA so it wasn't needed. Now that is scientific! So, I started taking a small dose as I use SPF50 almost daily which she knows. Eventually, my husband and I did have our D tests; his was 9 and my small dose had pushed me up to 22. Thirty is the minimum by today's standards.
Now, the curious part is that the last three blood draws he had showed his sugar levels in the 80's. I strongly suspect the results to be linked to the D levels as his sugar numbers improved just after he was on mega doses of D for 6 weeks. The first low number was nice, the second got me wondering what he was doing, but after the third good test, I remembered the D as he didn't change his habits so it must be something else dropping his numbers more than 20. So sad that the doctor didn't look into what was really going on as we pushed for several years to get the D tests.
For example, a woman in her 40s has been on drugs for anxiety for a long time. This resulted in a heart problem, so they gave her a drug for that. In turn, she got other symptoms and diseases. She is constantly going to doctors and getting tests.
If they told her in the first place that the best "medicine" for anxiety is regular aerobic exercise, she would probably be healthy and happy by now.
Ha - when I have anxiety attacks (usually in early a.m. before I've eaten) or am jumpier than usual, I drink milk and/or take calcium w/magnesium - and cut back on the sugar. Or, up the dose of bioidentical estrogen that day. I intuitively know which to choose. Voila - problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52
They had my mother on bp meds and statins for many years, and eventually she could hardly move her legs to walk. And her formerly mild mental illness became severe and incapacitating -- I don't know if that was related to the bp meds and statins, but quite possibly.
Statins are known to cause muscle loss - that's why the pain and cramping people mention. Without doubt, the statin was part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by songbird52
My mother is 87 now, so the drugs did not kill her. But she would probably be healthier and able to function now if her MDs had been more holistic. And the same is true of the average middle aged and older American.
MDs think these drugs are keeping people alive, although usually in pretty bad condition. But we really don't know if they would have been better or worse without the drugs. I think the drugs cause more diseases than they cure..
Agree. Quality of life is key. Constant doctoring, deteriorating condition, medication to counteract another medication is not a life I want. Seen plenty of examples of that, as well.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 11-12-2011 at 01:11 PM..
I have many experiences and examples. I never took any of the drugs that almost everyone seems to be on (anti-depressants, blood pressure and cholesterol lowering), but my mother has been on them since she was young. I and talk to people about their prescription drug experiences. Some are pretty amazing.
For example, a woman in her 40s has been on drugs for anxiety for a long time. This resulted in a heart problem, so they gave her a drug for that. In turn, she got other symptoms and diseases. She is constantly going to doctors and getting tests.
If they told her in the first place that the best "medicine" for anxiety is regular aerobic exercise, she would probably be healthy and happy by now.
They had my mother on bp meds and statins for many years, and eventually she could hardly move her legs to walk. And her formerly mild mental illness became severe and incapacitating -- I don't know if that was related to the bp meds and statins, but quite possibly.
So she had to go on anti-depressants, which eventually contributed to memory loss. Of course the memory loss is probably also related to the hypertension she had all her life, in spite of the bp drugs. But who knows.
My mother was still young when they put her on all that stuff. Her high bp was probably lifestyle-related, since it almost always is. But instead of recommending more exercise and a better diet, she got pills.
My mother is 87 now, so the drugs did not kill her. But she would probably be healthier and able to function now if her MDs had been more holistic. And the same is true of the average middle aged and older American.
MDs think these drugs are keeping people alive, although usually in pretty bad condition. But we really don't know if they would have been better or worse without the drugs. I think the drugs cause more diseases than they cure..
Let me give you a reverse story about MY Mom.
She only smoked for a few years back in the 50's, ate right and walked a mile or more just about every day. At the age of 82, she was taking no medications at all and, though she'd had some memory loss and an increasing tendency to panic over the least little thing, she was in as perfect health as one can be at that age. She lived alone in her own house with few problems.
Then, she came down with something similar to the flu and went to the doctor. A chest X-ray was ordered and the doc thought it showed fluid build up around her heart, so she put her in the hospital and started her on the old reliable drug for such things...Lasix. It's what nearly all doctors would do for indications of congestive heart failure.
Within 12 hours, she suffered a massive stroke which literally killed about half of the left side of her brain. Today, she's lost the use of her right arm and right leg, is unable to stand, sit without being propped up, change her own clothes, bathe herself or doing just about anything but eat. She did recover her ability to speak and some vision in her right eye, but that's about all. She's now in a rest home, which costs her about $4200 per month out of her own money and will continue to do so until she's flat broke.
Subsequent tests found no evidence of congestive heart failure or even a significant amount of plaque build up in her arteries, with the sole exception of where the stroke occurred. The possibility of a stroke is one of the side effects of Lasix and my brothers and I are pretty sure that's what caused it. Now, her list of medicines is about as long as my arm and we have to keep a close eye on it because every time she sees a doctor for anything, or the rest home doctor comes around, some other drug is added for some reason or another. It's like she can't get close to a doctor without having something prescribed for some condition, to prevent something, or to offset the side effects of something else. It's madness.
The point is that modern medicine, with doctor's simply doing what they've been trained to do, has reduced a vibrant, alive, fully-functional, independent old woman into a nearly helpless and confused, wheel-chair bound woman totally dependent upon others for her very survival, a woman who went from having a brilliant mind, a former school teacher who wrote and read all the time, to one whose thought processes now run no farther than eating, pooping and going to bed. That's what's left of her life and that's all it will be until she dies.
Yes people can get sick no matter what they eat or how they live. But it is wrong to think the real cause of Parkinson's Disease is not enough dopamine. Low levels of dopamine are associated with Parkinson's Disease, but that does not mean the cause is known. It might be related to lifestyle or environmental factors. Were people getting it at the same rates decades ago? I doubt it.
It often doesn't make any sense to compare the rates of a disease many decades ago with those now - because people live a lot longer today. More women are diagnosed with breast cancer now - because they live longer (and also perhaps because there are better screening techniques and women use them more). My mother was the first person in her family ever to get colon cancer. Because she lived past 80 - and most people in her family used to die at age 60 or so because of cardiac problems (she had 2 bypass operations - otherwise she would have been dead at 60 too - and avoided colon cancer). Robyn
My health CARE is primarily my responsibility. My HEALTH is totally in God's hands, as is the case with everyone else. We are really only fooling ourselves if we think we can control our own future. I take Jesus at His word when He said to give no thought to tomorrow or to our bodies, but to leave that with God. I also know that in a passage from Revelations pertaining to the end days, we find this: "..for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." (Rev. 18: 23) That word translated as "sorceries" is the Greek word Pharmakeia, from which, of course, we get the word pharmacy. It may mean nothing to you, but to me it's entirely plausible because so many people are taking so many drugs.
Medicines in general: I have a great reluctance to use any medicines or drugs of any kind that have been on the market for less than 30 years. Back during the Reagan years, drug companies were allowed to start marketing new drugs after doing only a required amount of preliminary testing. The reason, of course, was profitability. Under the old rules, testing had to be more comprehensive and lasted longer, meaning the drug companies could not begin making a return on their investments in research soon enough to suit them. Congress conveniently let them start marketing new drugs before they are fully tested, in effect using US as the long-term guinea pigs. That's how we've come to have so many recalled drugs, like Vioxx or whatever, long after they've been damaging people's health or even killing them. I guess the drug companies, and the government, believes the fast profit outweighs the risk of lawsuits down the road. In any case, it seems that far too many new "miracle" drugs end up being harmful after millions have used them, so I just won't take them. Just this week, I saw my first lawyer commercial targeting users of Zoloft and a couple of other seratonin uptake inhibitors which millions are using. I guess those are next.
I don't know much about theology - especially Christian theology - so I'll take a pass on that one.
I do know something about drug approval - because I argued the US Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether generic drugs needed pre-market approval from the FDA. If you recall the history of FDA pre-market approval - things became more difficult for drug companies after the thalidomide disaster. I think the bigger problems today with drugs are:
1) Off-label use (except perhaps when it comes to compassionate use for patients who are circling the drain - will be dead soon - and are willing to accept the risks - the cost of that off-label use - especially when it comes to cancer drugs - and whether insurance companies/the government should pay for it - is another issue). Sometimes drugs are found (often by accident) - to work well for certain off-label uses (two drugs that come to mind are Latisse and Botox). But those new uses should be approved by the FDA IMO.
2) Indiscriminate use of expensive "big gun" new drugs with known (or perhaps unknown) side effects when older less expensive drugs with fewer known side effects will do. A good example of this were the problems associated with chloramphenicol. Of course - the bigger your problem - the more you might be willing to accept the risks (known or unknown). The risks you might be willing to take to get rid of an occasional headache are obviously considerably less than the risks you might take if you had advanced cancer. It's pretty much a cost/benefit analysis thing IMO.
3) Some patients are stupid - or really really stupid. Which was why a useful drug like Accutane was pulled off the market (how many times did you have to tell some dingbat of a woman not to get pregnant when using Accutane?). And which is why I can't buy the old original Contac capsules any more when I get a bad cold.
4) Patients think there has to be a pill for everything. Which is why they insist on a prescription for antibiotics when they have a cold or the flu (viral infections).
I could go on and on - but you get my drift. As with most complex issues - there is no single villain.
As for your desire to use drugs that have only been on the market for 30+ years - perhaps that makes sense when it comes to something like high blood pressure. But what about all the new work with cancer drugs? If you were diagnosed with stage 3 this - or stage 4 that - would you rule out a drug simply because it hadn't been around since you were in high school? Robyn
This thread is really frustrating to me. When I took statins for four days I ended up in Urgent Care totally zoned out and my muscles just felt disconnected... The doctor told me to never take another statin again but my primary care doctors claimed they couldn't find the report and continued to push the cholesterol drugs. At times I have laid in bed clingling to my pillow too zoned out to move and just hoping my brain would recover. Other times I have had chest pain or become uncoordinated and had difficulty speaking. My neighbor is an emergency room drug overdose nurse and tells me about people being medivaced in with liver/kidney problems because of statins. I asked another nurse who would be responsible for my care if I took prescribed meds and they caused severe damage; totally my problem, of course.
My blood pressure is usually very low. But, one day while waiting for my husband at the clinic, I started feeling pretty bad. Seems I had gone too long since breakfast but didn't feel hungry. My blood pressure was very high until I had a few crackers at the clinic. That was documented by the nurse. Food effects my blood pressure but I'm no doctor.
The doctor has pushed me so hard about the drugs that now I don't tell them things I probably should like shortness of breath when riding my bike. I have always been sensitive to things like alcohol, even caffeine and sugar. Now that I'm in my 60's and the pharmaceutical companies want to sell me drugs, I find I am more sensitive than I ever knew.
Dr. Oz did a segment on the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and doctors a few months ago which confirmed what I had suspected. Patient think for yourself.
I think you need a new doctor. At least one PCP you trust. And stop talking to friends - neighbors - strangers - asking them about your health care. Or listening to Dr. Oz. They don't know beans about YOU.
I don't know whether or not the statins caused your problems - but it's not like taking them is going to save your life this year or next. So if you think you react poorly to them - don't take them.
There are drugs that I think are very different. For example - you might well get very sick taking chemo - but you shouldn't stop it just because it makes you feel bad.
I don't know what kind of health plan you have - but - if you're on Medicare - it's open enrollment period now. Find a Medicare arrangement where you can get decent doctors. Note that if I were afraid to tell my doctor about any potentially serious problem (like shortness of breath) - I'd run - not walk - to another doctor. Robyn
I don't know much about theology - especially Christian theology - so I'll take a pass on that one.
I do know something about drug approval - because I argued the US Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether generic drugs needed pre-market approval from the FDA. If you recall the history of FDA pre-market approval - things became more difficult for drug companies after the thalidomide disaster. I think the bigger problems today with drugs are:
1) Off-label use (except perhaps when it comes to compassionate use for patients who are circling the drain - will be dead soon - and are willing to accept the risks - the cost of that off-label use - especially when it comes to cancer drugs - and whether insurance companies/the government should pay for it - is another issue). Sometimes drugs are found (often by accident) - to work well for certain off-label uses (two drugs that come to mind are Latisse and Botox). But those new uses should be approved by the FDA IMO.
2) Indiscriminate use of expensive "big gun" new drugs with known (or perhaps unknown) side effects when older less expensive drugs with fewer known side effects will do. A good example of this were the problems associated with chloramphenicol. Of course - the bigger your problem - the more you might be willing to accept the risks (known or unknown). The risks you might be willing to take to get rid of an occasional headache are obviously considerably less than the risks you might take if you had advanced cancer. It's pretty much a cost/benefit analysis thing IMO.
3) Some patients are stupid - or really really stupid. Which was why a useful drug like Accutane was pulled off the market (how many times did you have to tell some dingbat of a woman not to get pregnant when using Accutane?). And which is why I can't buy the old original Contac capsules any more when I get a bad cold.
4) Patients think there has to be a pill for everything. Which is why they insist on a prescription for antibiotics when they have a cold or the flu (viral infections).
I could go on and on - but you get my drift. As with most complex issues - there is no single villain.
As for your desire to use drugs that have only been on the market for 30+ years - perhaps that makes sense when it comes to something like high blood pressure. But what about all the new work with cancer drugs? If you were diagnosed with stage 3 this - or stage 4 that - would you rule out a drug simply because it hadn't been around since you were in high school? Robyn
No, probably not. Then again, I'm not at all sure I'd even undergo treatment. Much would depend upon how much I would suffer and what quality of life I'd be likely to have afterwards. As you probably know, chemotherapy amounts to little more than bringing the body as close to death as possible to kill the cancer cells (my definition) and the effects on other, non-cancerous cells can be quite extreme, often leading to follow-on problems which can be crippling.
Since I've already lived a full and interesting life, and am certain where I'm going when I die, I see little reason to prolong life simply to prolong it. If it's not worth living, I'll just take my cancer and a good-sized prescription for morphine home and die on my own front porch. I'm 62 years old. I'll die soon anyhow, so what difference does a few more years make?
Let me make something clear, though. I have nothing against doctors. Most I know, or know of, are dedicated, hard-working professionals who would never knowingly do something to harm a patient. They have the best of intentions, but they are products of medical schools, which are too often too closely linked to pharmaceutical companies. The young doctors coming out can only doctor the way they've been trained to doctor and these days, that means what I think is an over-reliance on drugs.
Actually - the newest generation of doctors is IMO very reliant on tests - especially imaging - as opposed to only using drugs. My husband went to a young sports med doc as part of his recent MS workup at Mayo. And that doc had never practiced in a time or place where an MRI wasn't a routine part of a leg workup - assuming the leg looked pretty screwed up (my husband has a very weak leg/knee - so he got an MRI of the leg/knee as well as the normal MS MRI brain/spine stuff). FWIW - the MRI of his knee was the most useful thing he had (although the spine MRIs were very dramatic). It showed he had no ACL left. So he got a new kind of leg brace - which has improved his walking considerably.
I had my first MRI last year. It was called a dynamic pelvic MRI. It was - like many female kinds of things are - kind of yucky. But after almost 2 hours - the doctors knew exactly what was going on - where it was - and could give me a 99% assurance that it wasn't cancer. Although it had to come out (unless I wanted to walk like a duck for the rest of my life ). FWIW - the surgery took a lot less time than the MRI (it would have taken a lot longer if the doctors were just fiddling around inside me without knowing exactly what I had inside me).
My husband and I think this technology is great. Truly amazing. Will we use it every time we sprain an ankle? Certainly not. But it's nice to know that it exists. Robyn
I think you need a new doctor. At least one PCP you trust. And stop talking to friends - neighbors - strangers - asking them about your health care. Or listening to Dr. Oz. They don't know beans about YOU.
I don't know whether or not the statins caused your problems - but it's not like taking them is going to save your life this year or next. So if you think you react poorly to them - don't take them.
There are drugs that I think are very different. For example - you might well get very sick taking chemo - but you shouldn't stop it just because it makes you feel bad.
I don't know what kind of health plan you have - but - if you're on Medicare - it's open enrollment period now. Find a Medicare arrangement where you can get decent doctors. Note that if I were afraid to tell my doctor about any potentially serious problem (like shortness of breath) - I'd run - not walk - to another doctor. Robyn
Agree 100%. Especially the Dr Oz part. His information is generalized and could be harmful for some people. I and others have called him on his touting of vitamin D for everyone but we have gotten blown off by his staff. I just hope no one has been harmed by his advice.
Regarding taking drugs. There is so much information out there today, a patient can and should read up on whatever is prescribed and ask questions of a doctor if there are doubts or just for the sake of learning. There is no reason for anyone to just follow directions blindly. If a doctor does not want patients asking questions, I don't think I would want to continue on seeing him.
Although vitamins and herbs and the like, and I take some myself, are "natural" they can cause just as many side effects as synthetic drugs if taken improperly.
For example, a synthetic statin drug caused me to have severe muscle cramps. So I read up on the subject and switched to Red Rice Yeast for my cholesterol. RRY can also cause muscle cramps because it is a statin but by taking it with CoQ10 I have avoided the cramps and my cholesterol is now, as my doctor says, "awesome." She was with me every step of the way.
Eating healthy and exercising are good things but they do not necessarily guarantee a long and healthy life for all people. One should keep an open mind regarding all types of treatment.
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.
). FWIW - the surgery took a lot less time than the MRI 
(it would have taken a lot longer if the doctors were just fiddling around inside me without knowing exactly what I had inside me).
