Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rotten to the Mevacor
Merck is once again trying to sell its widely prescribed statin, Mevacor, over the counter, and an FDA advisory panel is listening to arguments today. (I wrote about Merck's second doomed attempt to do the same back in 2005 for my first Reason feature) As one cardiologist told me then, "We're talking about the thing that kills more people than any other disease in America...We're talking about millions of lives saved." Merck has sold a statin OTC in Britain for years now.
The FDA confirms that Mevacor is effective and extremely safe if used properly, but has long doubted the ability of consumers to read directions and follow them. ABC News finds a long list of selfless, kindly cardiologists with absolutely no interest in the status quo to argue that consumers can't possibly deal with their cholesterol problems without... the help of a cardiologist. Also, drug companies are profit-driven. Not like cardiologists.
"I think this is a very clear call," said Dr. Steve Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and immediate past-president of the American College of Cardiology. "I do not think it is a good idea."
"OTC [over-the-counter] statins would be a very bad idea," agreed Dr. John Messmer, associate professor of medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Palmyra.
"While it is true that statins are indeed quite safe despite rumors to the contrary ... when a drug is available OTC the user should be able to judge whether it has had the desired effect. The nonmedical person is not in the position to decide if his or her cholesterol is low enough."
Dr. Douglas Zipes, distinguished professor of cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, agreed that the possible side effects of the drug lend weight to the argument that it should not be available without a prescription.
"[The] dangers are that it may prevent people from seeing a cardiologist and not getting a proper evaluation for their heart disease," Zipes said.
And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh well.
|12.12.07 @ 3:47PM|#
And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the
doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh
well.
Ohnoes, the socialists have gotten to Kerry, too!
There are no patients who lack health insurance, silly. And if
there are, they are rich and healthy. And even if, somehow, there
were poor people without health insurance who therefore had trouble
getting regular medical treatment, they can always get free care in
an emergency room.
So there couldn't possibly be an access issue here.
heh
|12.12.07 @ 3:54PM|#
There certainly is an issue of access here. People with health insurance see their doctor more often. The doctor will at least every other year check your blood, urine etc. That turns up the high cholestrol. People without health insurance do not get tested. So they do not get treated. When the hit emergency room it is because they are having a heart attack or other side effect from high cholestrol.
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 3:58PM|#
has long doubted the ability of VOTERS to read directions
and follow them
It's amazing how people who are smart enough to elect their own
leaders are not trusted by those same leaders to be smart enough to
do anything else.
|12.12.07 @ 4:00PM|#
So there couldn't possibly be an access issue
here.
Nope, couldn't be self serving opinions by the medical profession
either. Doctors only want to serve humanity.
Does anybody here think that having statin available OTC would
prevent them from seeking proffessional advice if you deemed it
necessary?
Is anyone here too stupid to read and understand the warning labels
on OTC drugs?
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:03PM|#
they can always get free care in an emergency
room.
Or, just get it at your regular doctor's office.
Oh, that whistling sound you hear? That's joe walking past the
graveyard.
|12.12.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Big bucks for a coffee burned crotch.
Smokers suing big tobacco because smoking was unhealthy.
Mom drinks a quart of whiskey a day while preggers then has a
retarded kid and sues the distiller.
Many people are too f**kin dee dee deee to pour piss from a
boot.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:05PM|#
You know, I'm about to have my libertarian decoder ring and
whistle pulled for this one, but I'm wondering if we may need
another *ducks* government oversight organization on this one.
Maybe split the FDA into two seperate offices.
One which decides if a drug is "safe and effective", another which
decides the details such as whether it can be OTC or not. Just
wondering.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:07PM|#
But people without health insurance are all
young!
Methinks you're talking about the unborn? The embryo? The glint in
the milkman's eye?
Maybe not.
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/insurance/children.htm
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:13PM|#
And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the
doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh
well.
Kerry, in all honesty, joe's gonna have a field day with you on
this one.
If the drug were to remain prescription, it could be argued poor
people would have more access to it, not less. The reason is that
poor people are getting real in-clinic healthcare (not emergency
room care only) and probably wouldn't be aware of such a drug on
the shelf. When they have an appointment, the doctor will suggest
this drug, and the prescription will probably be largely paid for
from public monies.
I'm not really sure if this is a class issue, or a general
infantilization issue. I think it's the latter, not the former.
|12.12.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Paul,
Thanks for backing me up, and drawing attention to the need for
public-sector programs to address this country's health-care access
program.
More like that, please.
ed|12.12.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Self medication is never a good idea for the layman. Statins aren't aspirin. Not that I believe people should be protected from their own stupidity, but let's be honest. Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time, then go on their merry way without any further followups. I won't jump on the "all doctors are evil" bandwagon. They come in pretty handy when you're having a heart attack.
|12.12.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Oops, not "program," "problem."
"...this country's health-care access problem," I meant.
The one that led Washington State to create that program that you,
somehow, seem to believe is an argument against the existence of
people who would have trouble getting medical care on their on.
that annoying anti-pharmaceuti|12.12.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Reason magazine is a propaganda mouthpiece for the
pharmaceutical industry. Among their various unsavory corporate
sponsors are Bayer, Pfizer, and Eli Lily. Pharmaceutical companies
do not give a flying fuck about the health of consumers. It is in
their interest for us to stay sick and become more sick. Eli Lily's
top selling drug, Zyprexa, causes diabetes. This is given to
basically every person who is committed in the United States.
Lily's second most lucrative drug is a diabetes drug. I have been
committed before and the withdrawal from psychiatric
pharmaceuticals can just as bad as heroin or cocaine.
This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people. Instead of
helping them get decent food we should give them this poisonous
shit, according to libertarians. Honestly, if you can afford to eat
organic vegetables but are too stupid or brainwashed to spend the
extra money, go ahead and take the cholesterol pill and see what
happens.
Also, if anyone has any illusions left about the FDA, remember that
they are now allowing super potent antibiotics to be used on beef
cattle that will breed super resistant bacteria that will attack
people. They started doing this earlier this year, despite the
contrary advice of the scientists advising them.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Joe, in many of my debates with you, you seem to be convinced,
and have said as much, that you don't believe I "support" these
public programs.
This couldn't be further from the truth. I do support some of these
programs (yes, some I don't), especially the ones that provide
real, basic healthcare. Our system works well. Going to a single
payer system, however, would be disasterous. Our contry provides
enough excess wealth to take care of our poorest people on the
healthcare front. In fact, our healthcare system has enough excess
wealth to pay for the healthcare the Canadians have access to, but
aren't able to get in their own country.
We provide food stamps for the poor, and I'm for that program, too.
But that doesn't mean that I think the government should go to a
single food-provider system and provide Bill Gates' food as
well.
But unfortunately, this really isn't so much of a healthcare
thread, as a thread to discuss the viability of a given drug to be
sold OTC. So I'm going to abandon the threadjack.
|12.12.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Paul,
I will join you in abandoning the threadjack, and apologize if I
missed you meaning.
|12.12.07 @ 4:24PM|#
...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.
|12.12.07 @ 4:36PM|#
True, joe, but do we want to go down the "keep ratcheting up
public assistance until the poor are *happy*" road? That would be a
well no amount of money would fill.
Johnny "Threadjacking with pride since 2001" Clarke
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#
joe,
but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will
actually buy?
Crack at about 50 cents on the dollar?
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood
tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time,
then go on their merry way without any further
followups.
And their cholesterol will be lower.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 4:39PM|#
This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people.
taaph:
I thought libertarians were doing everything they could to avoid
giving drugs to the poor people?!!
Ohh, I fed the troll. Sorry guys.
joe:
...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will
actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.
Not only have I seen what foodstamps buy, I've also seen the cost
of cigarettes in this state, and somehow, many poor people
manage to afford them.
In the end, a lot of it comes down to priorities.
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:39PM|#
joe,
There is no health care access problem. Everyone has access to the
health care they can afford. Its not like 1950 where a negro might
not be allowed to see the white doctor.
OhMeOhMy|12.12.07 @ 4:41PM|#
...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will
actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.
Are you fucking kidding me? I lost my job last year, and we had to
resort to using food stamps for about 3 months to keep our family
fed. We got more money in food stamps per month than we would have
spent were we not on the program.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 4:41PM|#
How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high
cholesterol without seeing a doctor? It doesn't make any sense at
all to sell this drug over the counter.
And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the
doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh
well.
How incredibly dishonest and hypocritical. I'm sure you really care
about those poor people who can't afford to see a doctor. That's
why you're trying to privatize their healthcare, right? So they can
afford prescription drugs. Right. How do you people say that shit
with a straight face? As if they would lower the prices if we would
just let them.
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:43PM|#
How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high
cholesterol without seeing a doctor?
The new market in finger prick cholesterol testing kits? I have no
idea if this is possible, but seems like it could be to me.
|12.12.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Defining the problem away is what you do when you can't, or would rather not, solve it.
Weird time travel conversation|12.12.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Traveler: You should test to see if you are pregnant
Old timey gal: But I cant afford a doctor
Traveler: Then just pee on a stick
Old timey gal: ????
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Noticing the lack of Italian sports cars in my garage, and not enough cash in my wallet, I declare that I have a ferrari-access problem.
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Defining the problem away is what you do when you can't, or
would rather not, solve it.
Or, its possible that there isnt a problem.
|12.12.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Tell it to Kerry, fellas.
She seems to think that keeping this drug prescription-only would
reduce access for people who lack health insurance.
She seems to think that there are people who, because they lack
wealth or health insurance, aren't able to visit the doctor as
often as they need.
Go ahead, explain why she's wrong.
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:53PM|#
joe,
On the first part, technically she is right, but that is a
different "access" problem than the one you are talking about. The
existence of the FDA leads to a drug-access problem, because some
drugs arent yet approved or are prescription only. ANY
prescription-only drug leads to an access problem.
On the second part, once again she is right. They dont visit the
doctor as often as they need. But they have the RIGHT to visit,
they just choose to put other expenses over health care (and if it
is food/shelter, they are probably choosing correctly). That is an
income problem, not a health-care access problem.
|12.12.07 @ 4:54PM|#
"""they can always get free care in an emergency room.""""
Yeah we need more non-emergencies clogging up the emergency
room.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 4:55PM|#
She seems to think that keeping this drug prescription-only
would reduce access for people who lack health
insurance.
GOOD! They should be getting subsidized organic produce. Ron Bailey
is a sleazeball liar. Poor people have cholesterol problems from
the shitting food they are forced to eat. It's really obvious at
this point.
Joe, if you think universal healthcare is a good idea you need to
wake up to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has some
serious bad news in store for us. If the American people don't do
something about it we are going to get universally poisoned pills
shoved down our throat by government thugs.
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 4:56PM|#
The new market in finger prick cholesterol testing
kits?
New? The stuff's been out more than EIGHT years!! (My sister used
to run one of the labs.
http://www.hmscweb.com/healthprovide.htm)
robc|12.12.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Russ 2000,
Good, then that solves that whole problem of self diagnosis then.
You should let Dr. John Messmer, associate professor of medicine at
the Penn State College of Medicine in Palmyra know about it
too.
robc|12.12.07 @ 5:01PM|#
From the link Russ posted:
Now testing your cholesterol level is so easy and accurate
with Home Access Health's Instant Cholesterol kit. The test is
simple and easy to use, requiring only a few drops of blood
obtained from a finger stick sample, and results are available in
ONLY 15 minutes. The kit comes with an instructional insert that
allows the user to interpret the results using the updated National
Cholesterol Education (NCEP) guidelines. Home Access Health
provides a 100% satisfaction guarantee to consumers and backs the
service with an extended hour toll free customer support line. High
cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for developing heart
disease and stroke. It is important for all adults over 20 years of
age to test every 5 years for cholesterol and more often for those
with total cholesterol levels of over 200 mg/dl. Pharmacy patients
who are on cholesterol reducing drugs such as Statins and Niacin
are prime candidates for Home Access Health's Instant Cholesterol
test. Click on the product for more information and to purchase
on-line today!
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Eli Lily's top selling drug, Zyprexa, causes diabetes. This is given to basically every person who is committed in the United States. Lily's second most lucrative drug is a diabetes drug.
If you'd prefer haldoperidol or chlorpromazine, then... Zyprexa
"causes diabetes" by stimulating the apetitie. A certain percentage
of people who overeat will become grossly overweight, and subset
those individuals will develop diabetes. Proposing an organized
plot here is a little paranoid. All drug companies make diabetes
medications, because diabetes is so common. Zyprexa would probably
be an even better seller if it wasn't associated with weight
gain.
This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people. Instead of helping them get decent food we should give them this poisonous shit, according to libertarians.
Diet is only a portion of cholesterol, and probably the smaller
part for most people. I have family members who can eat a plate of
eggs and bacon before getting their blood drawn, and their LDL
never pops above 80. I have other family members who eat like cows
and can't drop below 250. Statins are a godsend to the latter.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#
GOOD! They should be getting subsidized organic produce. Ron Bailey is a sleazeball liar. Poor people have cholesterol problems from the shitting food they are forced to eat. It's really obvious at this point.
There is very little reason to suspect that organic tomatoes, for
example, have cholesterol-lowering powers that their conventional
counterparts lack, nor is diet the primary contributor to
cholesterol for most people.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#
New? The stuff's been out more than EIGHT years!!
Okay, I guess we can let everyone who wants to take the cholesterol
drug, and then another new drug to fix the problems that the
cholesterol drug causes.
I don't doubt that the people writing for Reason magazine really
think they are helping poor people by fighting for the rights of
pharma companies to do whatever the fuck they want. I used to be
brainwashed, too. Then I realized that they are trying to make us
sick. And if you think they actually want to make people better you
are a fool.
Fuck, we could have cured all kinds of diseases by now if we had
allowed stem cell research to go through. But hey, where would that
leave the pill companies?
|12.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#
The FDA confirms that Mevacor is effective and extremely
safe if used properly, but has long doubted the ability of
consumers to read directions and follow them.
You mean, like the directions printed on the side of the
prescription drug bottle you get from the pharmacy?
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 5:11PM|#
robc,
He probably already knows. An uneducated consumer is a doctor's
best customer.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Poor people have cholesterol problems from the shitting food
they are forced to eat.
My mainstream grocery store has tons of quality, low-cholesteral
foods which are dirt cheap. I'm sorry, could you please provide
pictoral examples of all the poor people being forced at gunpoint
to eat the high-cholesterol, and relatively more expensive
foods?
Sheesh, people on this thread are brutal with joe, yet he's a dream
to have a debate with compared to this reactionary (and
unsubstantiated) crap.
robc:
I think you miss the larger point. If your doctor identifies that
you have a cholesterol problem-- a "chronic" condition, it probably
behooves you to buy one of these testing kits so that you may
monitor your cholesterol on an ongoing basis, without having to
needlessly run to the doctor three times a week. The main issue
being that one need not be constantly running to the doctor for
basic health maintenance.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Proposing an organized plot here is a little
paranoid.
Bullshit. I'm not even getting started. Psychiatric drugs don't do
anything to fix "mental illness". They only cripple the brain. The
organized plot is called "Attention Deficit Disorder" and the
newest drug for that (besides SPEED) is called Strattera. Strattera
actually causes people to become bipolar, which I have experienced
personally. It even says it on the label now because the FDA made
them put it there.
So just about everyone can be diagnosed with ADD, then the
prescription gives them mania, then the get bipolar meds, which in
turn give them diabetes. This shit happens A LOT. There are lawyers
that specialize in Seroquel lawsuits. They don't give a fuck about
us. They want us to get sicker.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 5:14PM|#
I used to be brainwashed, too. Then I realized that they are
trying to make us sick.
?!!
*slowly backs away*
Paul|12.12.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Fuck, we could have cured all kinds of diseases by now if we
had allowed stem cell research to go through.
Stem cell research never stopped. Ever. Europe, which has a utopian
healthcare and public research complex continues apace with
stem-cell research. Federal funds were barred for embryonic stem
cell research, shifting the financing to private and state
entities.
Or, is the joke on me, and I'm responding to a comment bot coming
from Z-Mag?
robc|12.12.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Paul,
Im 38 and havent been to the doctor in about 15 years. It probably
behooves me to get to the doctor. But buying one of those kits and
checking my cholesterol wouldnt hurt either and would be a lot
cheaper (well, probably not much cheaper than my copay), especially
if I didnt have insurance.
Now, that said, if I found I had a problem, I would go to the
doctor before I started taking statins, even if they were OTC, but
I dont even like to take aspirin/tylenol/cold medicine/etc.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:19PM|#
?!!
I used to be a libertarian, then I realised that all the utopian
talk about "real capitalism" is a bunch of horse shit.
Pharmaceutical companies are the best example.
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 5:23PM|#
it probably behooves you to buy one of these testing kits so
that you may monitor your cholesterol on an ongoing basis, without
having to needlessly run to the doctor three times a
week.
People on the meds NOW only get tested every 3 months as their
"ongoing basis". But you've probably hit upon a great markteing
idea - get people to test way more often than necessary. There's no
such thing as "too safe" ya know.
(Here's the kits my sister used to work on:
http://www.ebiosafe.com/frame.asp?Current_Category=1&Current_Product=4)
|12.12.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Europe, which has a utopian healthcare and public research
complex
Oddly, though, many of the best scientists are coming to the US and
have been for years. I used to work with a medical research
foundation that was stocked almost entirely with top-flight French
scientists, and we had a waiting list a mile long.
|12.12.07 @ 5:26PM|#
you know who:
Psychiatric drugs don't do anything to fix "mental
illness".
Apparently going off psychiatric meds doesn't help either...
I\'m smarter than you|12.12.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Statins should be OTC. If being OTC saves just one life it'll all be worth it.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Apparently going off psychiatric meds doesn't help
either
Withdrawal very often causes the symptoms of a drug's matching
"disorder". Not that you know anything about me, anyway. You try
taking that shit and then explain to me why it makes you want to
kill yourself.
|12.12.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Psychiatric drugs don't do anything to fix "mental
illness".
As a person who suffers from rapid-cycling bipolar disorder and
whose life was saved by Eli-Lilly, I order you to fuck off, you
bleeding cunt.
|12.12.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Seriously, "you know who," come here and say it to my face. I'll fucking pound your eyes shut.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:39PM|#
I'll fucking pound your eyes shut.
Gotta love those psychiatric drugs.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Jamie Kelly, I also suffer from bipolar disorder. I got it from
taking that new ADD medication called Strattera. Since I feel for
you I'd like to tell you that a lot of people I know have had very
positive results with acupuncture, both for detoxification and
emotional symptoms.
So tell me, do you still suffer from bipolar "disorder"? Have they
"cured" you? Have they "not found the right medication" yet?
|12.12.07 @ 5:46PM|#
you know who,
Why don't you go join the fucking LaRouche party, grease up Oliver
Stone's flaccid dick and stick it straight in your ass, you
conspiracy-addled little mental midget.
|12.12.07 @ 5:48PM|#
There is no "cure" for bipolar disorder, limpdick. You can only
treat the symptoms. But surely you knew that because you're SO
well-read on the subject.
Goddamn, who let out the fuckers on the short bus today?
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Oliver Stone? Has he done any work about pharmaceuticals? I'm
interested. I haven't even seen JFK. Your changing the subject
makes me think you are not really suffering from bipolar
disorder.
It would also explain the violent language.
|12.12.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Your changing the subject makes me think you are not really
suffering from bipolar disorder.
You know, I feel like going off my meds for a while and getting all
manic on your ass. And I'll bring a baseball bat, too.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Seriously, being seen as violent is probably the last thing someone who is labeled as "mentally ill" wants. That's the sort of thing that gets you committed.
|12.12.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Merck can do whatever they want without regulation (as long as
they pay their taxes). After all, corporations and gov't are merely
quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't
needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms
to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue,
the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes
literature, Amazon and Wikipedia ban the book "America Deceived".
We The People had our gov't sold out from beneath us.
Final link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the
title):
America Deceived (book)
|12.12.07 @ 5:54PM|#
The reason I'm so pissed off is because I've been listening to
bullshit artists like you ever since I was diagnosed. And I've done
enough research into your claims to know that YOU fuckers are
brainwashed, and attempting to do real harm to people in the name
of corporation-bashing.
SO FUCK YOU.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:55PM|#
Come to think of it, have you heard about the new Preventing Violent Domestic Radicalization act? Your comments would probably qualify you as an "enemy combatant".
|12.12.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood
tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time,
then go on their merry way without any further
followups.
And how does this affect me?
Seriously, preventive care is, by and large, a result of personal
decisions that we make every day. Many diagnostic tests, (blood
pressure, cholesterol, pregnancy, vitamin deficiencies) can be
performed without ever seeing the degreed lady in the white smock.
Self treatment, by informed people, would ease the burden on our
bastardized health care system. To argue that drug availability has
to go through a gatekeeper insults the intelligence of me and every
other health care consumer. That some people will make bad
decisions is not a valid reason to deny everyone
access to health care products. Should we require a visit to a
professional dietician in order to select the foods we eat? The
health implications of those decisions are enormous.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Who exactly is brainwashing me, then? Also, I am interested in this "research". Show me, if it's there.
|12.12.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Sheesh, people on this thread are brutal with joe, yet he's
a dream to have a debate with compared to this reactionary (and
unsubstantiated) crap.
joe is a left wing statist. He's intelligent, often funny, and
occasionaly insightful. I'm getting much better at just ignoring to
loons.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Since I feel for you I'd like to tell you that a lot of
people I know have had very positive results with acupuncture, both
for detoxification and emotional symptoms.
you-know-who. You do realize that you could have had equally
satisfying results with fake acupuncture, right?
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:03PM|#
J sub D,
I agree with self-treatment in general, but I think there is a
legitimate concern that a lot of people would take this drug
unnecessarily and this could cause health problems. I wanted to
point out that the reason this is being discussed on this website
is to stand up for the rights of Merck to sell us their drugs, and
that the health of poor people is secondary to libertarians. If
they cared about the health of poor people they would be arguing
against subsidized organic farming.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:05PM|#
You do realize that you could have had equally satisfying
results with fake acupuncture, right?
Have you ever had acupuncture? It definitely beats a placebo.
Psychiatric drugs, on the other hand, are often found to be less
effective than a placebo.
|12.12.07 @ 6:10PM|#
I agree with self-treatment in general, but I think there is
a legitimate concern that a lot of people would take this drug
unnecessarily and this could cause health problems.
First I would like to apoligize yo all for feeding the troll.
A whole lot of people put stuff in their systems every fuckin' day
that is bad for them. Including me (6-8 cancer sticks). Name a
product, somebody will abuse it to their own detriment. I don't
think that adults should have their decisions regulated based on
the lowest common denominator, i.e. morons like yourself.
|12.12.07 @ 6:11PM|#
Organic farming is horseshit, too. It's more dangerous in terms
of your health, it's no more nutritious than store-bought food, and
it's far more expensive.
SO FUCK OFF.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Have you ever had acupuncture? It definitely beats a
placebo.
So does fake acupuncture. I'm sorry, maybe you don't follow the
news.
Here's a link.
Or, are we going to be treated with another rousing personal
testimonial? I've avoided posting mine, but you're pushing
me.
Psychiatric drugs, on the other hand, are often found to be
less effective than a placebo.
That's a pretty bold and broad statement. Could you provide the
clinical studies which show "Pschiatric drugs" are less effective
than placebo?
Paul|12.12.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Post correction: Although my post "worked", this: "Or, are we
going to be treated with another rousing personal testimonial? I've
avoided posting mine, but you're pushing me.
" was supposed to be at the end of my post, not the middle.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Almost half the patients treated with acupuncture needles
felt relief that lasted months. In contrast, only about a quarter
of the patients receiving medications and other Western medical
treatments felt better.
Even fake acupuncture worked better than conventional care, leading
researchers to wonder whether pain relief came from the body's
reactions to any thin needle pricks or, possibly, the placebo
effect.
Okay, even fake acupuncture would be better than psych medication.
At least it doesn't make you sick.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:20PM|#
Organic farming is horseshit, too.
Wow, you must really love Reason magazine. Do you think that
Roundup is good for you?
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Could you provide the clinical studies which show
"Pschiatric drugs" are less effective than placebo?
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020906.html
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 6:43PM|#
While I dislike "you know who"'s conspiracy talk, psychiatric
meds have a dubious track record. They can help people, but many of
them are very dangerous, and often unhelpful. Some drugs that help
some people will be useless, or counter-productive to others. (This
is not to say they should be removed, etc.)
Unfortunately, many of the people who complain about the drugs are
former patients - who suffer from credibility problems as a result
of their conditions. That the Scientologists also attack them makes
it that much easier to dismiss criticism of psych meds as coming
from a bunch of nutjobs.
Very often, the studies done on psych meds are by psychiatrists on
drug company payrolls, which at the very least suggests a conflict
of interest. At worse, it could mean the FDA is little more than a
barrier to entry for newer companies, while those doing the studies
are just working on an exercise in logrolling.
For a good critical study of psych meds, read Peter Breggin's
Toxic Psychiatry.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 6:52PM|#
you know who:
Thank you for the link.
My first comment is what you've done is provided a link to possible
issues with one subclass of "psychiatric drugs", particularly
anti-depressants. This does not even begin to cover the large array
of drugs provided to people with all manner of psychoses such as
schizo-effective disorder, etc. So your broad statement of
"psychiatric drugs" is still wanting.
However, even the article you provide doesn't paint this issue as a
slam-dunk. For instance, there are statistically significant
differences between the anti-depressant and placebo. Just not
"clinically significant".
However, you've cherry picked one of the major areas which is a
notoriously "fuzzy" segment of psychiatric "illness". Depression in
many ways is much like back and neck pain-- two things which also
respond very well to placebo and acupuncture (real or fake).
I would point out that the drugs covered are for depression
specifically, not bi-polar. The manic side of bipolar disorder is
often treated with Lithium. Lithium is very affective vs. placebo,
for instance.
Also, you "know" your bipolar was caused by a drug. From the very
site you use as an authoritative source:
The cause of bipolar disorder is not entirely known. Genetic, neurochemical and environmental factors probably interact at many levels to play a role in the onset and progression of bipolar disorder. The current thinking is that this is a predominantly biological disorder that occurs in a specific part of the brain and is due to a malfunction of the neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain). As a biological disorder, it may lie dormant and be activated spontaneously or it may be triggered by stressors in life.
Problem here, you-know-who, is that I have personal experience with
bi-polar disorder, and believe me, it was there before
medication was taken, not after.
BakedPenguin:
No one here who knows one whit about psychiatric medications
believe they're a walk in the park. Many have severe side effects,
but to label them all as no more effective than placebo, then go
and talk about what effects they have is... sorry for this...
nutty. Antipsychotics are often times as bad as the disease, but
when you've got a man walking naked down the street, muttering to
himself, giving him a medication that gives him body ticks and
makes him unable to regulate his body temperature is, alas, the
lesser of two evils.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:54PM|#
That the Scientologists also attack them makes it that much
easier to dismiss criticism of psych meds as coming from a bunch of
nutjobs.
Fucking A. That's what I usually get here.
Go ahead and dislike the "conspiracy talk". The drugs make you
sick. I am not making this shit up. These people give amphetamines
to 5 year olds. There is no excuse. How can you possibly trust
them? Do you think it's a good idea to give a kid speed? They are
nothing but drug pushers, and much worse than the illegal drug
pushers because they have more money and more power. They own the
fucking government.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 6:55PM|#
fyi, bakedpenguin, I wasn't suggesting you said the drugs are no more effective than placebo, I was referring back to you-know-who's comments.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Okay, even fake acupuncture would be better than psych medication. At least it doesn't make you sick.
One of the best principles of medicine is to do as little as
possible. Patients, however, have a tendency to demand treatment
whether it is really indicated or not, leading to overprescription
of many drugs from antibiotics to antidepressants. A number of
people recieving these drugs would probably get better on their
own. Unfortunately, it is not considered ethical to prescribe a
placebo. Sham treatments, like acupuncture and most herbs, then, do
have a place in medicine. They function as placebos, allowing
people to satisfy their urge to "get something done" while they get
better on their own, and avoid the side effects of prescription
medications.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Paul,
I am trying to say that the person walking down the street naked
doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their entire
life.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:04PM|#
I am trying to say that the person walking down the street naked doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their entire life.
As someone with professional experience in the field, I would like
to say that there is much more to psychosis than simply walking
around naked, and that antipsychotics have made live livable for a
number of people (and their families) who would otherwise exist is
a paranoid hell. One can always wish they had fewer side effects,
but they are far better than nothing.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:04PM|#
And Tacos, acupuncture is not a sham treatment. Try getting full body acupuncture. It alters your consciousness in a way that a placebo can't. Full body acupuncture is at least as potent as cannabis.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:05PM|#
I am trying to say that the person walking down the street
naked doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their
entire life.
I think you and I are probably in agreement here.
*chairs creaking as the entire psychiatric establishment leans
forward to hear the solution*
SIV|12.12.07 @ 7:07PM|#
I would suggest Jamie Kelly and you know who read a few books by
the great libertarian thinker Thomas Szasz. I had to double-check
to make sure he wasn't mentioned in the original post.
Every drug belongs OTC in any free society.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:07PM|#
One can always wish they had fewer side effects
One could also demand accountability when Eli Lily knew that the
drugs were making people physically ill and yet pushed for
off-label use for practically every listed "disorder".
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:10PM|#
And Tacos, acupuncture is not a sham treatment. Try getting full body acupuncture. It alters your consciousness in a way that a placebo can't. Full body acupuncture is at least as potent as cannabis.
I suppose it depends on the conditions. For sinusitis or
schizsophrenia, it would certainly be a sham treatment. For
disorders associated with anxiety, probably not. I have undergone
accupuncture, however, and I will say that they must have has some
pretty wimpy cannabis when you were growing up.
know i dont|12.12.07 @ 7:10PM|#
High colonics, they cure everything.
Legitimate health care providers of irrigation services can be
identified by their tight latex uniforms and high heeled boots.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:10PM|#
*chairs creaking as the entire psychiatric establishment
leans forward to hear the solution*
MAPS should be allowed to experiment with willing volunteers to
treat mental illness. That way we could at the very least clear up
this "cannabis causes psychosis" garbage.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:12PM|#
Tacos
They function as placebos, allowing people to satisfy their
urge to "get something done" while they get better on their own,
and avoid the side effects of prescription medications.
This is why some insurance companies now cover acupuncture.
Acupuncturists see this as a vindication of their craft. In
reality, it's a matter of dollars and sense.
Insruance companies can send someone with the incredibly vague and
hard to treat malady such as back or neck pain, or smoking
cessation, to a real doctor who will treat with traditional but
expensive procedures. Or, we can send someone to an acupuncturist
who plays Windham Hill cd's and sticks needles in the body. Either
way, we're getting roughly the same results and personal
testimonials. One costs a lot of money, the other costs much less.
Sugar pills are cheap. If people report results with sugar pills,
let's buy them instead.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:12PM|#
One could also demand accountability when Eli Lily knew that the drugs were making people physically ill and yet pushed for off-label use for practically every listed "disorder".
Most, if not all, drugs have the potential to make people
physically ill. There is always a balance between therapy and side
effects. It's only when a drug has no effects whatsoever that it
also has no side effects.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:15PM|#
There is always a balance between therapy and side
effects.
Bullshit. Zyprexa is made to shove down people's throats against
their will. I can tell you work in the industry because a human
being wouldn't apologize for these evil motherfuckers.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 7:16PM|#
Paul - yes, "you know who" was engaging in some hyperbole. I
wrote my post because psych meds can be very dangerous, and I
wasn't seeing any acknowledgment of that fact.
you know who - nearly all drugs have side effects. I don't think
you're wrong in criticizing the drug companies for pushing the over
medication of America, I think you're wrong in seeing
inter-connected conspiracies everywhere. Their second best selling
drugs fights diabetes? Maybe that's because diabetes is one of the
largest health problems in the US.
Neuroleptics may be necessary in some cases. But they are often
over prescribed and over dosed. One of the saddest uses is on
Alzheimer's patients. People who are already having problems
thinking having what remains of their brain destroyed by drugs. If
treatments are developed for Alzheimers in the next few years, some
of the people who could have benefitted won't be able to because
their brains will have been damaged beyond repair.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:16PM|#
It's only when a drug has no effects whatsoever that it also
has no side effects.
Which is why acupuncture is so great-- no nasty side effects.
True story: My wife was thinking of getting acupuncture. My
response: it certainly can't hurt!
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:17PM|#
These people give amphetamines to 5 year olds. There is no excuse. How can you possibly trust them? Do you think it's a good idea to give a kid speed?
Amphetamines are not as toxic as they are made out to be by drug
warriors. It is often underappreciated as well how much pressure to
prescribe these drugs comes not from drug companies, but from
patients and parents. The doctor is getting it from both ends - the
drug company, with its glossy pamplets, and from frazzled mom, who
demands something to slow little Jimmy down. You can't blame it all
on the companies. The companies offer, the patients demand, and the
doctor is frequently stuck in between.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:18PM|#
If treatments are developed for Alzheimers in the next few
years
There won't be, because there is already an effective treatment.
It's called cannabis. They don't want to help those people.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:21PM|#
There won't be, because there is already an effective
treatment. It's called cannabis.
You might want to get the word out to these
folks.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:21PM|#
Bullshit. Zyprexa is made to shove down people's throats against their will. I can tell you work in the industry because a human being wouldn't apologize for these evil motherfuckers.
You do realize that psychotic patients do not enjoy their
psychosis, don't you? It's pretty unpleasant when the devil tells
you that you have to copy the entire bible onto your bedroom walls
or your heart will stop. I know many more people that appreciate
these drugs that resent them. I'm sorry that you had a bad
experience, but don't generalize it.
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:22PM|#
You can't blame it all on the companies
Don't forget about psychiatrists. People who invent the rationale
for pushing the drugs deserve blame too, but in the end psychiatry
is just an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:24PM|#
There won't be, because there is already an effective treatment. It's called cannabis. They don't want to help those people.
People who smoke cannabis, as well as those who drink moderately,
do seem to have a lower incidence of neurodegenerative disorders.
However, I know of know research into cannabis as a theraputic
agent in individuals who have already developed dementia. My
intuitive sense, however, is that it would be less that
effective.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:25PM|#
People who invent the rationale for pushing the drugs
deserve blame too, but in the end psychiatry is just an extension
of the pharmaceutical industry.
Someone who worked exclusively with the mentally ill in a clinical
setting told me something once: Never try to logically convince the
mentally ill person that their paranoia is irrational.
Am I going to hell for repeating that here?
you know who|12.12.07 @ 7:26PM|#
I know many more people that appreciate these drugs that
resent them.
"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be
within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making
people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless
concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in
fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather
enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel
by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by
pharmacological methods."
- Aldous Huxley
Thank you for doing your part to support the global open-air
concentration camp
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:29PM|#
too, but in the end psychiatry is just an extension of the
pharmaceutical industry.
But seriously... this would be a bit like saying telephones are an
extension of the plastic industry.
Tacos mmm...|12.12.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Thank you for doing your part to support the global open-air concentration camp
Certainly, it would be innappropriate for everyone to be taking
anti-psychotics. Fortunately no one is suggesting such a thing.
Paul|12.12.07 @ 7:40PM|#
The companies offer, the patients demand, and the doctor is
frequently stuck in between.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
|12.12.07 @ 8:34PM|#
"Someone who worked exclusively with the mentally ill in a
clinical setting told me something once: Never try to logically
convince the mentally ill person that their paranoia is
irrational.
Am I going to hell for repeating that here?"
Paul,
My head was about to explode. Thank you for the depressurization
due to levity.
|12.12.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Millions of people, life or death? Then this is the American
Genocide, isn't it?
I sense a powerful campaign issue for Ron Paul.
For a lot of elderly GOPers thought to be securely in the Neocon
camp, even al-Qaeda is nowhere near as scary as what's going on
inside their chests.
Mike Laursen|12.13.07 @ 1:45AM|#
How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high
cholesterol without seeing a doctor?
One answer: Why the fuck can't we have more grades of health care
professionals who are qualified to diagnose certain common problems
and prescribe medications (or better yet recommend OTC medicines
because we've completely done away with prescriptions) without
having to earn a full Medical Doctor degree? Pharmacists, for
example, could revise their traditional role of being more than
glorified bottle fillers.
|12.13.07 @ 8:01AM|#
The companies offer, the patients demand, and the doctor is
frequently stuck in between.
The poor widdle doctors can take care of themselves.
They prescribe so many drugs because (a) a lot of drugs these days
are pretty handy at actually curing people, or at least alleviating
symptoms and (b) its a good way to get you out of their office
quickly, which is important because doctors need to turn exam rooms
in order to make money.
Mike Laursen|12.13.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I used to be a libertarian, then I realised that all the
utopian talk about "real capitalism" is a bunch of horse
shit.
Yes, but your next realization will be that all utopian talk about
government protecting us is a bunch of horse shit, too. Then you'll
realize that all utopian talk is horse shit. Period. At that point,
you can begin to think rationally about the nature of government
and societal power structures in general.
Mike Laursen|12.13.07 @ 8:10PM|#
I'm aware of nurse practitioners, which is why I said, "more grades of health care professionals". It is my understanding that, depending on which state they are practicing in, nurse practitioners are not always allowed to prescribe all of the medicines a doctor can, nor always allowed to practice independently of a doctor. Also, for many common ailments, a nurse practitioner has more training than is actually needed, helping to drive up the cost of healthcare.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245