# "Alternative" Medicines



## Julia (25 September 2011)

An item in today's paper reminded me of something I've never been able to understand, viz. why so many people regard products bought from a health food shop, or complementary medicines shelves of a supermarket or pharmacy as superior to something their doctor prescribes.

Most of these 'alternative' preparations have never undergone proper clinical trials and all the TGA requires of them (as I understand it) is that they contain the ingredients stated.  Nothing at all about efficacy!!

Even given this minimal regulatory environment, the article today states that nine out of ten of these products were not meeting these regulatory requirements.

There seems to be at long last a mood to have more rigorous standards applied to these products and about time imo.

But in the meantime, if any ASF members favour the use of these products over a prescription drug which has been rigorously tested, I'd really like to know why.

(Acknowledgement here that not every pharmaceutical drug is 100% safe, given occasional side effects which appear after some years and/or idiosyncratic reactions.)

I'm always blown away when I hear people saying they prefer to 'take something natural' and then proceed to buy a bottle of factory produced capsules, the contents of which cannot be guaranteed, and the efficacy of which has never been proven.


----------



## medicowallet (26 September 2011)

Well this has got my interest.

ANY practitioner who does not abide by evidence based medicine, is seriously jeopardising their ability to practise.

There are some excellent complementary medicines available, which are evidence based, but they are few and far between.

One of the groups which are great exploiters of natural medicines and are contributing to the snake oil use, are pharmacists. The so called guardians of medicine often recommend products of no known efficacy to make sales, and this highlights the lack of knowledge, and possibly ethical inadequacies of pharmacists.

I highly recommend anyone who is interested in natural medicines to consult the literature themselves, or to ask their GP if the medicine has any effect. 

A note to make is that the PBS lists medicines that are cost effective and efficacious. If the natural medicines were any good, there would be no hesitation to have these listed.


----------



## Julia (26 September 2011)

medicowallet said:


> One of the groups which are great exploiters of natural medicines and are contributing to the snake oil use, are pharmacists. The so called guardians of medicine often recommend products of no known efficacy to make sales, and this highlights the lack of knowledge, and possibly ethical inadequacies of pharmacists.



MW, your comment here is particularly appropriate in the light of Blackmores setting up a deal with pharmacists where, when a pharmacist dispenses a prescription, the customer is offered for sale an additional Blackmores' product, on the so called basis that the 'natural' product will enhance the action of the medically prescribed drug.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...mmerical-interests-first/2942126/?site=sydney

I would hope there will be many pharmacists who will resist this upselling (would you like fries with that?).  However, if you combine the irrational tendency of consumers to believe that non-prescription products are somehow better with the apparent authority of the pharmacist actually suggesting this, I'd imagine Blackmores are on to a winner here.

We have members of parliament jumping up and down about nicotine, alcohol and gambling.  Imo there's every bit as much risk attached to the indiscriminate consumption of these largely unproven products.


----------



## medicowallet (26 September 2011)

I would be very interested to know the 4 products and their indications, so I can search the evidence myself.

Pharmacists are one of the highest paid health professionals, and this kind of behaviour shows why. Their skills are extremely limited, and their pathway to riches is laid by unashamedly generous government protection for what?  so they can exploit customers with one size fits all recommendations.

The problem is that there is a huge market for alternative medicines, because people believe what so-called professionals tell them. This is embarrassing.


----------



## bellenuit (26 September 2011)

medicowallet said:


> One of the groups which are great exploiters of natural medicines and are contributing to the snake oil use, are pharmacists. The so called guardians of medicine often recommend products of no known efficacy to make sales, and this highlights the lack of knowledge, and possibly ethical inadequacies of pharmacists.




I was quite surprised to see that a pharmacy in Subiaco has a permanent sign at the base of their window advertising that Homeopathy was one of their speciality areas. As I understand it, Homeopathy is utter nonsense with no scientific foundation.

*Homeopathy: A drop in 10 Billion Oceans*

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/09/18/homeopathy-a-drop-in-10-billion-oceans/#more-1861


----------



## Logique (27 September 2011)

'Very expensive urine', as I've heard it described. People munching down big bottles of vit and herbal supplements.

However I don't dismiss it all out of hand. Things like Same, lemon myrtle, St Johns Wort, plants like broccoli, tomatoes for lycopene, honey on wounds...on a cusp with nutrition I guess. 

Many centuries of folk wisdom there, but the area needs much more work, including on the mixing of natural with prescription medicines, which can be adverse. But certainly, never refuse the GP's prescription.


----------



## motorway (27 September 2011)

Logique said:


> 'Very expensive urine', as I've heard it described. People munching down big bottles of vit and herbal supplements.
> 
> However I don't dismiss it all out of hand. Things like Same, lemon myrtle, St Johns Wort, plants like broccoli, tomatoes for lycopene, honey on wounds...on a cusp with nutrition I guess.
> 
> Many centuries of folk wisdom there, but the area needs much more work, including on the mixing of natural with prescription medicines, which can be adverse. But certainly, never refuse the GP's prescription.





http://newhope360.com/aging/triage-theory-offers-new-look-aging


----------



## motorway (27 September 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I would be very interested to know the 4 products and their indications, so I can search the evidence myself.
> 
> Pharmacists are one of the highest paid health professionals, and this kind of behaviour shows why. Their skills are extremely limited, and their pathway to riches is laid by unashamedly generous government protection for what?  so they can exploit customers with one size fits all recommendations.
> 
> The problem is that there is a huge market for alternative medicines, because people believe what so-called professionals tell them. This is embarrassing.




http://www.blackmores.com.au/about-...ases/blackmores-companions-range-in-the-media





> Most GPs and pharmacists are aware of the role probiotics can play alongside antibiotics and coenzyme Q10 alongside statins. However, there is also a need to consider zinc status in those taking certain antihypertensives, magnesium status in those taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and vitamin D status in those taking statins”.
> The Blackmores Companions range will be available from October 2011.


----------



## medicowallet (27 September 2011)

Ok, 

These are actually good medicines.

However, a shotgun approach is unethical and stupid.  Why should ALL people on statins be offered an expensive CoQ10, or ALL people on antibiotics a probiotic.

THIS KIND OF MISINFORMATION JUST DUMBS DOWN THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDING OF MEDICINES AND THEIR SIDE EFFECTS.

In fact, I am going to go into 3 pharmacies today, and ask them how statins actually affect CoQ10, and the ramifications of this. I bet not one will have any idea what I am talking about.

I will also ask them to name 4 normal flora constituents of the small bowel, I bet they will be able to name 1 or 2.

They are clearly adopting the shotgun approach for profit, instead of using a targetted approach whereby these products are actually recommended to people who need them.

This is disgusting, and the pharmacy guild should be ashamed of this profit-derived greed.

Pharmacy should be deregulated NOW.


----------



## Julia (27 September 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Ok,
> 
> These are actually good medicines.
> 
> ...



Excellent idea, MW.  Look forward to hearing the results of your excursion to the pharmacies.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 September 2011)

I feel sorry for pharmacists.  Must be a hell of a boring job talking to Mrs Smith about her constipation each week and pretending to care.  

We'll soon have online discount pharmacies where you simply scan your prescription and the pill dispenser mails it out to you.  No need for shop fronts or staff.  Mrs Smith will have to go and make some friends at bingo or the pokies.


----------



## tech/a (27 September 2011)

What never ceases to amaze me are those who are in the most dire of health---turn their back on conventional medicine for Alternate???


----------



## Julia (27 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> We'll soon have online discount pharmacies where you simply scan your prescription and the pill dispenser mails it out to you.  No need for shop fronts or staff.  have to go and



 You can already do this.



tech/a said:


> What never ceases to amaze me are those who are in the most dire of health---turn their back on conventional medicine for Alternate???



Agreed.  It's a different story, however, for those for whom all conventional medicine has failed.  At that stage I can quite understand anyone trying whatever is left.


----------



## brty (27 September 2011)

This type of thread annoys me. 

There is an underlying assumption in the original premise that anything from pharmaceutical companies that is patented = good, anything from the natural world, and therefore unpatented = bad/snake oil.

Utter garbage perpetuated by the pharmeceutical industry that sells patented drugs.

The type of testing that is regarded as 'scientific', ie double blind placebo controlled, is nearly entirely carried out on patentable chemicals, not on natural substances. There is no money in unpatentable products, therefore they do not get the funding.

However, I will be the first to admit there is much snake-oil in many 'alternative' products (such as homeopathy), yet to tarnish everything 'alternative' with the same brush is shear lunacy.

Take Vitamin C, I dare anybody here to go without any for a year. I'm pretty sure it has some benefits  

Take COQ10, mentioned above, by someone who appears to know little about it. Here is some basic information, look up the references for more information...

http://www.ana-jana.org/reprints/CoQ10Reprint.pdf

Or perhaps you could look here at this letter from the International Coenzyme Q10 Association to the FDA about the issue of Q10 depletion from statins...

http://www.icqa.org/Issues/issue2.html

medicowallet, if you are suggesting people on statin medications should not take Q10, then it is you who needs to do some research, before offering poor advice, not the pharmacists. I have discussed this topic with GP's who usually know nothing about Q10, cardiologists, some who know more and even a secretary of the International Society for Heart Research, who was definately onboard about Q10.

Everyone needs to do their own research in this area (medicines, pharmaceutical AND alternative), real research, spend hundreds of hours studying things. Only then will you be able to make up your mind what is snake-oil and what is real. You find both on both sides of the fence.

brty


----------



## Julia (27 September 2011)

brty, nothing to stop the 'natural medicine' industry setting up proper clinical trials.


Why, if they are going to claim therapeutic effects, should they not be required to demonstrate clinical efficacy?

Re Vit C comment in your post:  of course there would be adverse outcome if we were to entirely eliminate Vit C or probably most other vitamins for a year.
What I'd question is the need for additional, factory produced Vit C in addition to what we are able to consume in a decent diet with plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 September 2011)

I know people who go to alternative practitioners, and they get loaded up with not one but 20 different herbs/supplements/tinctures to take!  I think they like throw everything at it and hope something works!

There's obviously a few naturally occurring things that work, and they tend to end up in the popular media.  I can think of a few off the top of my head - folate (in pregnancy), lithium, fish oil, glucosamine, marijuana (for appetitte, pain control).  GP's know about these things.  People who work in the alternative industry tend to have little idea about what constitutes proof.


----------



## brty (28 September 2011)

Rofecoxib, commonly sold as Vioxx, was a Merck product, approved by the FDA in 1999. By 2003 yearly sales were ~$2.5b, yet it was withdrawn from sale in 2004 for safety reasons and later there proved to be dodgy results from the earliest studies.

The point here being the $2.5b in sales. Only if you can make that sort of money are companies prepared to spend the millions necessary to undertake the clinical trials. The alternative medicine industry does not have the sort of money needed to undertake the trials, and certainly could not make the money back even if it was invested in trials. As the natural ingredients are unpatentable, if I were to spend millions proving that herb xyz saved lives, there is nothing to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from selling herb xyz, using my research to prove it's effectiveness.

Pharmaceutical companies are interested in money, not health. They do the research and spend money on trials of proprietary products. When they do research on 'alternative medicines' (non patentable products) they do it to prove they don't work even if they do, Q10 being an example.

I am not an advocate for alternative practitioners, there are plenty of dodgy ones, possibly even most.

 My main point is about people doing their own research, not just trusting what someone says. If you go back 10 years there were plenty of good doctors who were prepared to write prescriptions for Vioxx, yet would tell people to stay away from unproven 'alternatives' like glucosamine and chondroitin. At the time there was more positive research/trial results on g&c than Vioxx. Only after NIH funding in the US was a major study undertaken about g&c, called GAIT, here...

http://www.arthritis.org/media/newsroom/statements/GAIT_Statement_FINAL_2_21_06.pdf 

...did g&c become mainstream.

However further study was done on a subset group from the main GAIT study for a period of a further 2 years. With careful selection of participants new research showed no difference in treatments compared to placebo or celecoxib (Celebrex).
The new research is referred to show g&c as useless, yet it showed Celebrex to be just as useless. 

Double blind placebo controlled studies are not the foolproof method of proof that the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe, just as other types of evidence including anecdotal should not be dismissed out of hand.

Everyone has a responsibility to themselves to do their own research, just like in trading and investment.


----------



## medicowallet (28 September 2011)

brty said:


> Take COQ10, mentioned above, by someone who appears to know little about it. Here is some basic information, look up the references for more information...
> 
> http://www.ana-jana.org/reprints/CoQ10Reprint.pdf
> 
> ...




No, if you care to read my post instead of making assumptions, you would see that I said that they are good products, but a SHOTGUN approach is pointless. 

This is what the pharmacy guild is advocating.

There is no need for ALL people on statins to be on CoQ10.

BTW, how many people have you recommended CoQ10 for?  I have done so for many, but not all, not by a long shot.

MW


----------



## brty (28 September 2011)

medicowallet,



> but a SHOTGUN approach is pointless.




When it comes to COQ10 I would disagree, especially when someone has been prescribed statins. Unless you are prepared to do blood serum readings of Q10 both before and after someone starts using statins, then the shotgun approach is the best in this instance.



> There is no need for ALL people on statins to be on CoQ10.




Which people do you advocate not taking Q10 with statins??

brty


----------



## sails (28 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> ...marijuana (for appetitte, pain control)....




Firstly it's not legal and secondly it has shocking psychotic effects which appear at the first sign of withdrawal (usually because the user has run out of money) and which get increasingly worse during the many months of withdrawal. 

I understand it is also a depressant, and yet sadly, depressed people try to self medicate with it.  

Absolutely shocking stuff and life threatening due to suicidal tendencies during withdrawal.  It's not the harmless stuff we have been led to believe.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (28 September 2011)

Not for recreational use.  As a medicine.  Has nasty side effects, like all potent medicines.  And it is legal to grow one plant for yourself for medicinal use, as I understand it.


----------



## medicowallet (28 September 2011)

brty said:


> medicowallet,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There is no need. Are you aware how many Australians are taking statins?  Are you aware how many people have serious side effects?  Why not just give the people with side effects the CoQ10? 


Why not give everyone on a loop diuretic, potassium?  

Why don't we give all people on ace inhibitors, diuretics or insulin?

Because there should be an *indication and need* for all medicines recommended, and a shotgun approach does not address this. The only exception I can think of to this is with public health initiatives.

I have no Idea why pharmaci$t$ would be recommending this to all patients.
MW


----------



## lindsayf (28 September 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Pharmacists are one of the highest paid health professionals.................




ummm..I'd like to see the evidence for that.  Owners of retail pharmacists might do ok..but degree qualified retail employed pharmacists are one of the lowest paid health professionals out there.

I realise this doesnt change the overall argument..but might as well be factual


----------



## medicowallet (28 September 2011)

lindsayf said:


> ummm..I'd like to see the evidence for that.  Owners of retail pharmacists might do ok..but degree qualified retail employed pharmacists are one of the lowest paid health professionals out there.
> 
> I realise this doesnt change the overall argument..but might as well be factual




Of course I meant owners. And if by do ok you mean earn squillions, then yes. Have you seen the registration papers for a pharmacy before?

Now before you get all high and mighty, a pharmacy is one of the easiest businesses to run as it is a crazily regulated industry, that any person with any minor business training can succeed with.

Yes, qualified, younger pharmacists were screwed over by their guild who actively encouraged the over supply of pharmacists since the early 00's.  This is the same guild that is now flogging off natural medicines in unethical ways to make $$$.

MW

Pharmacy should be deregulated.


----------



## lindsayf (28 September 2011)

what makes you think I would dare to get high and mighty...just making a point which is now clarified

all haps now


----------



## kimcasablancas (28 September 2011)

I don't really get it either. I see nothing wrong with complementary medicine but 'complementary' is the key word there. If you have a cold or something minor it probably also doesn't hurt to use natural therapies only, but I don't think these are meant to replace modern medicine. 

A lot of people seem to be under the misconception that 'natural' means 'better' and 'healthy'....well, some of the world's most deadly poisons are 'natural'.


----------



## brty (28 September 2011)

medicowallet,

That is a poor argument and you know it. You are comparing a product , Q10 that has no known serious side effects and comparing it to other additions that can have serious side effects.

I see your methodology is not to keep people healthy but to only add Q10 when side effects become present. There is no downside to people having Q10, it is in every cell in the body already, with research showing the older people having lower levels compared to 'ideal'. 

brty


----------



## medicowallet (28 September 2011)

brty said:


> medicowallet,
> 
> That is a poor argument and you know it. You are comparing a product , Q10 that has no known serious side effects and comparing it to other additions that can have serious side effects.
> 
> ...




Well, for one it is not in every cell...

CoQ10 is great, and should be an option, but its use needs to be weighed vs its cost, and for a lot of people, this cost is prohibitive.

Now, Potassium is in about every cell in the body too, and low levels of it are dangerous, yet K is not prescribed for everyone on a loop diuretic, why not?

The downside to having CoQ10 is that it is bloody expensive.  Have you got any evidence of the benefit of CoQ10 across a population of statin users?  If you do, please post it, and then I might change my mind.

How far do you go keeping people healthy? How much cost is worth it to them? These are unlikely to be addressed by a pharmacist.  Why isn't everyone on a statin, why not on clopidogrel?, why isn't everyone on an A2RA?

Contrary to what you may believe, I do not think I have the exact answer. That is for people smarter than I, I just know that not every single person in Australia on a statin will benefit from CoQ10, and we need to develop ways of identifying people who need it, otherwise the health dollar (private as it may be) may be inefficiently spent, and therefore have a negative impact upon health outcomes, not positive.

But I agree, people need to do their own research on these items, until something more concrete comes about. But I would also add, that they must talk to their own GP, and not their pharmacist (who has limited access to their health information), and definitely not take advice from lowly internet chat forums.

MW


----------



## Julia (28 September 2011)

kimcasablancas said:


> I don't really get it either. I see nothing wrong with complementary medicine but 'complementary' is the key word there. If you have a cold or something minor it probably also doesn't hurt to use natural therapies only, but I don't think these are meant to replace modern medicine.



Can you give an example of a 'complementary' product that you believe is useful in treating a cold which is simply a virus and usually runs its course (barring any bacterial infection) in about a week?



> A lot of people seem to be under the misconception that 'natural' means 'better' and 'healthy'....well, some of the world's most deadly poisons are 'natural'.



 Exactly.  And this was the point I was trying to make when starting the thread.
i.e. that many people will eschew evidence based, doctor prescribed medicines in favour of some semi-regulated, untested product because it's sold via a health food shop or the 'natural health' section of a pharmacy, despite the fact that *what they are actually going to take is some factory produced synthetic product*.

I'd be less incredulous if they were going to go out and gather some plant in its natural state.  That, at least, would offer a logic to their philosophy.




medicowallet said:


> Of course I meant owners. And if by do ok you mean earn squillions, then yes. Have you seen the registration papers for a pharmacy before?



Off topic somewhat, but I agree with MW.  I have a friend who owns several pharmacies throughout Qld and 'squillions' is not too far off the mark.


----------



## kimcasablancas (30 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Can you give an example of a 'complementary' product that you believe is useful in treating a cold which is simply a virus and usually runs its course (barring any bacterial infection) in about a week?




I didn't really mean that it would get rid of the cold, but I just meant that things like mint tea will soothe your sore throat as good as anything while you wait it out


----------



## Miss Hale (30 September 2011)

I think people gravitate to "alternative" medicines for a variety of reasons.  I used to work for  naturopath and many of her clients were coming to her after trying conventional medical treatments and getting poor results or suffering undesirable side effects. The basis behind a lot of natural treatments is to get to the heart of the problem and not just treat the symptoms. I should stress that this naturopath would always suggest visiting a regular GP if she felt that the person needed treatment that only a GP could provide but she was quite happy to work with GPs etc to treat people's health problems. 

With regard to clinical trials, the reason many alternative/natural health products have not undergone clinical trials is because there is no money in it.   You can't patent a herb or a mineral so why bother the fund expensive trials when anyone can sell this product? Maybe you should ask why large Pharaceutical companies fund clinical trials  .

Personally, I really do think there is a place for both conventional and natural/alternative medicine. How many of us would be dead without the wonders of antibiotics? However.... there is not doubt that some of things like antibiotics are overused.  If you are continually coming down with infections of one kind or another you need to look into WHY that is happening (weakened immune system perhaps?) so hopefully you dont' need to have course after course of antibiotics.


----------



## Julia (30 September 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> I think people gravitate to "alternative" medicines for a variety of reasons.  I used to work for  naturopath and many of her clients were coming to her after trying conventional medical treatments and getting poor results or suffering undesirable side effects. The basis behind a lot of natural treatments is to get to the heart of the problem and not just treat the symptoms.



Could you explain how a naturopath does this?  i.e. what sort of testing is carried out?  Can a naturopath order biochemistry in a laboratory?  Or X-Rays/scans etc?

(Last weekend I read an account of someone visiting a naturopath who was told that one of her ovaries was four degrees hotter than the other!)   Of course, she was quickly supplied with some herbal preparation that was somehow going to correct this peculiar difficulty.  I would just love to know how that naturopath came to such a bizarre conclusion.)




> With regard to clinical trials, the reason many alternative/natural health products have not undergone clinical trials is because there is no money in it.   You can't patent a herb or a mineral so why bother the fund expensive trials when anyone can sell this product?



Of course I don't expect anyone to engage in even the most basic of clinical trials if all they are offering is a simple Vit C tablet, or other straightforward compound.

What gets me is the stuff like  "Ten Day Detox" apparently because a human body which has efficiently eliminated what is not useful suddenly needs some herbs to clean that dirty liver.  
When looking at some of these products, they all seem to be accompanied by a recommendation to go on a low calorie, fat and largely carbohydrate free diet for at least the period of the dreaded detox, drinking lots of water and lemon juice etc.

If someone has been eating a crap diet, then yes I suppose they will feel less than great, but why wouldn't just changing that diet, even fasting for a couple of days with just fluids, work quite adequately to effect an improvement?

But then, hey, you wouldn't have that chance to sell that $140 ish bottle of supa dupa liver detox pills.

And then we have the magic magnetic underlays, wrist bands and various other magnet carrying ornaments.  These have been totally disproved to have any effect on arthritis.  Yet here you go:



> * Cotton Double Underlay +2 F
> Arthritis and Inflamation
> Double Cotton
> SAVE! 15%
> Your Price - $169.95"




And then of course there's the perennial favourite, the slimming pills.  Why just change your diet and get some exercise when you can pay an arm and a leg for some stuff that's magically going to fix your obesity without any actual effort from you?	



> Weight Loss - Slimming
> Box of 60 Sachets
> SAVE! 17%
> Your Price - $49.95







> Maybe you should ask why large Pharaceutical companies fund clinical trials



So they can legitimately apply to the FDA in the first place with proof that a drug works after engaging in multiple double blind randomised controlled trials.


----------



## motorway (6 October 2011)

brty said:


> This type of thread annoys me.
> 
> There is an underlying assumption in the original premise that anything from pharmaceutical companies that is patented = good, anything from the natural world, and therefore unpatented = bad/snake oil.
> 
> ...





http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-...armacy-deal-withdrawn/3317960/?site=melbourne


Some *very unequivocal comments*  from Dr Harvey



> "It is true that sometimes people on lipid-lowering medications can get muscle aches and pains, for example," Dr Harvey said.
> "But the evidence for taking supplements like coenzyme Q10, which was recommended ... the evidence that this would eliminate the problem is not good.
> "Certainly the evidence that taking it routinely will prevent the problem - there's no evidence at all."
> Dr Harvey says the National Prescribing Service - an independent authority that advises doctors and pharmacists on treatments - has recently released a review confirming that the routine use of the four complementary medicines included in the Blackmores deal is not recommended.




comments ?

motorway


----------



## Julia (6 October 2011)

Blackmores have succumbed to the outrage against their upselling idea with pharmacies, apparently especially following many pharmacies placing prominent signs in their businesses that they would have nothing to do with such a contra deal, and have withdrawn the plan.

Great outcome which demonstrates it's sometimes actually worthwhile expressing outrage at some commercial ideas.


----------



## sptrawler (6 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Could you explain how a naturopath does this?  i.e. what sort of testing is carried out?  Can a naturopath order biochemistry in a laboratory?  Or X-Rays/scans etc?
> 
> (Last weekend I read an account of someone visiting a naturopath who was told that one of her ovaries was four degrees hotter than the other!)   Of course, she was quickly supplied with some herbal preparation that was somehow going to correct this peculiar difficulty.  I would just love to know how that naturopath came to such a bizarre conclusion.)
> 
> ...




Sums it all up perfectly


----------



## medicowallet (7 October 2011)

So the pharmacists have reacted to the negative publicity to this money grab (with zero evidence base for a shotgun approach)


Next thing is to deregulate the money grab government protection blessed rort of the system.


----------



## Logique (8 October 2011)

Apropos of which,

bit off topic, but, lacking 'suspicious symptoms', I might track down the alternative medicine for prostate health after reading this:

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Health/2011/10/08/Healthy_men_dont_need_prostate_checks_670684.html
*Healthy men don't need prostate checks *
Saturday, October 08, 2011

*Routine screening for prostate cancer does not help save the lives of healthy men, US govt health says.* Routine screening for prostate cancer does not help save the lives of healthy men and often triggers the need for more tests and treatments, a US government health panel says.

The US Preventive Services Task Force's draft recommendations, which will be open to public comment on Tuesday, are likely to face a pushback from advocates of the *PSA blood test *as well as from drugmakers and doctors who benefit from the *now-lucrative screening industry*.

Based on the results of five clinical trials, *the recommendation to avoid a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test *- which measures the level of the protein in the blood - applies to healthy men of all ages without suspicious symptoms...

...*'The low specificity of the PSA test coupled with its inability to distinguish indolent from aggressive tumours means that a substantial number of men are being overdiagnosed with prostate cancer*,' the task force said on Friday.


----------



## medicowallet (8 October 2011)

Logique said:


> Bit off topic,
> but I might track down the alternative medicine for prostate health after reading this:
> 
> http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Health/2011/10/08/Healthy_men_dont_need_prostate_checks_670684.html
> ...




The test is not designed to distinguish indolent from aggressive tumors

The article is correct, the test is not *specific* but it is a good screening test which shows good *sensitivity*

A specific test is a biopsy.

So unless there is a want to biopsy every man every year, then a test with an ok sensitivity (such as PSA) is used to screen, then a test with good specificity (such as biopsy) is used to diagnose.

The article is potentially dangerous, unless you understand the correct use of tests and the concepts of sensitivity and specificity

eg, mammography shows good sensitivity (at particular age groups), but specificity to aid diagnosis is improved by doing fine needle aspiration (and for that matter, analysis of any discharge).   Why not ban mammograms and replace it all with FNA?

The first bit is particularly stupid.. OF COURSE SCREENING HEALTHY MEN DOES NOT SAVE LIVES... but the screening PICKS UP unhealthy ones!!!   A stupid comment from a stupid article.


----------



## Logique (8 October 2011)

medicowallet said:


> The test is not designed to distinguish indolent from aggressive tumors
> The article is correct, the test is not *specific* but it is a good screening test which shows good *sensitivity*... a test with an ok sensitivity (such as PSA) is used to screen, then a test with good specificity (such as biopsy) is used to diagnose.... the screening PICKS UP unhealthy ones!!!



Duly noted, thanks for that MW.


----------



## medicowallet (8 October 2011)

Logique said:


> Duly noted, thanks for that MW.




No problems... PSA is also a preference for some, especially those with brawny GPs, with muscular arms and large hands..


----------



## motorway (8 October 2011)

Logique said:


> Apropos of which,
> 
> bit off topic, but, lacking 'suspicious symptoms', I might track down the alternative medicine for prostate health after reading this:
> 
> ...




http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725763

motorway


----------



## motorway (8 October 2011)

motorway said:


> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725763
> 
> motorway




*From Medscape Medical News
Most Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Too Often Get High-Risk Treatment
Neil Osterweil*

"July 26, 2010 ”” A majority of men with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer choose to undergo aggressive local intervention with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, despite the high risk for complications and adverse effects and the availability of active surveillance as an alternative.

These conclusions, drawn from a study published in the July 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, once again illustrate the problems of overtreatment of prostate cancer, say experts contacted by Medscape Medical News.

In the study, Grace L. Lu-Yao, PhD, and colleagues from the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, in New Brunswick, analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and found 123,934 men with prostate cancers that were newly diagnosed between 2004 and 2006.

The researchers found that 14% of the men had prostate-specific antigen levels lower than 4.0 ng/mL ”” the widely accepted threshold for recommending biopsy. Of this group, 54% had low-risk disease features, including disease confined within one half of 1 lobe of the prostate (stage T2a or less), Gleason score of 6 or less, and a PSA of 10 ng/mL or less.

Yet more than three fourths of all patients with PSAs lower than 4.0 ng/mL elected to undergo radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. The team found that 44% of men with PSAs lower than 4.0 ng/mL underwent radical prostatectomy, and 33% had radiation.

"Our study found that aggressive local therapy was provided to most patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer," Dr. Lu-Yao and colleagues write.

"These results underscore the fact that PSA level, the current biomarker, is not a sufficient basis for treatment decisions. Without the ability to distinguish indolent from aggressive cancers, lowering the biopsy threshold might increase the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment," the investigators write.

Men with cancers detected by screening had a significantly lower risk of having high-grade disease compared with men with cancers detected by other means (odds ratio [OR] for screening, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 - 0.76), but the screen-detected cancers in men with PSAs lower than 4 were significantly more likely to be treated with either surgery (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38 - 1.62) or radiation (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.30 - 1.49).

The same group of researchers has previously reported that conservative management of prostate cancer diagnosed in the age of PSA ”” from the 1990s on ”” had better outcomes than conservative management of disease diagnosed in the 2 previous decades, possibly because of "additional lead time, overdiagnosis related to PSA testing, grade migration, or advances in medical care" (JAMA. 2009;302(11):1202-1209).

Informed Discussions Best Antidote to Overdiagnosis, Overtreatment

An informed discussion between physician and patient is the best means for ensuring that patients get the appropriate treatment for their disease stage and grade, says coauthor Robert S. DiPaola, MD, from the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, and associate dean for oncology programs and professor of medicine at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, in an interview with Medscape Medical News.

"It's not because we would say there's some cutoff here, because there are men diagnosed with prostate cancer who have PSAs less than 2 or 2.5 [ng/mL]. I think it really needs to be an informed discussion over biopsy vs no biopsy, based on a number of different parameters, including exam, prostate size, perhaps ultrasound, PSA velocity, and PSA level related to age," he said.

Armed with that information, the clinician can then discuss with the patient his prognosis and his options for therapy.

"For example: A man 75 [years old] or so with an average, say, stage T1c tumor would have about a 10% chance of dying from prostate cancer in his lifetime, and based on that they can discuss whether that warrants for him radical prostatectomy or radiation. Obviously, for younger men we tend to err on the side of local therapy," Dr. DiPaola says.

He cautions, however, that there are as yet no reliable means for accurately determining risks for individual patients, which is why many men who might otherwise die from other causes still undergo aggressive therapies.

"A Frightening Piece of Information"

A proponent of active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer patients tells Medscape Medical News that overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer is a major problem for urologists, oncologists, and patients today.

"I think if you look around the country at what's happening with prostate cancer management in general, young men have surgery, and they're overwhelmingly more likely to have surgery than radiation treatment, and what we're trying to do is find those who don't need either," says Donald S. Kaufman, MD, director of the Claire and John Bertucci Center for Genitourinary Cancers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

"The business of taking people who are younger with PSAs that are lower and have biopsies that show cancer and then have surgery is actually a piece of frightening information which we're all aware of, and this paper brings it out very nicely," he says.

Lowering guideline-recommended PSA cutoffs to 2.5 or 2.0 ng/mL, as has been proposed in recent years, would make a bad situation even worse, and could result in an additional 400,000 cases of prostate cancer, "and God knows who's going to take care of them, except that if they did nothing it would be better," Dr. Kaufman adds.

Philip Kantoff, MD, director of the genitourinary cancer program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agrees.

"There is a changing tide in the field through the recognition of a variety of studies, including this one, that a substantial number of people, particularly in the good-risk category with good-risk features, don't require treatment but have been getting treatment, and we need to improve our ability to identify these people and to figure out reasonable strategies for following them," Dr. Kantoff tells Medscape Medical News.

Not "Watchful Waiting" but "Active Surveillance"

Although many men balk at the idea of waiting around for something to happen ”” a common perception of traditional "watchful waiting" ”” active surveillance, with yearly or biannual biopsies, digital rectal exams, and PSA testing every 3 to 6 months, can be an effective alternative for many men with low-risk prostate cancers, say Richard M. Hoffman, MD, MPH, from the New Mexico VA Health Care System and University of New Mexico School of Medicine in Albuquerque, and Steven B. Zeliadt, PhD, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington in Seattle, in an accompanying editorial.

"Active surveillance is considered an acceptable alternative for men with cancers at low risk for progression as defined by a PSA level of 10 ng/mL or lower, a Gleason score of 6 or lower, and a clinical stage of T1c or T2a," they write. "For men who select active surveillance, the choice to undergo deferred treatment remains available and can be based on evidence of disease progression (rising PSA level, increasing Gleason score, and/or an abnormal [digital rectal exam] finding) and/or patient preference."

Active surveillance should not be restricted to men 65 years and older, because many younger men will also have biopsy-proven cancer that would otherwise not cause them problems during their lives, Dr. Kaufman says.

"I see so many highly intelligent young men who come in having had a biopsy which shows a minimal amount of Gleason 6 cancer, and they'll say 'I have cancer and I want it out ”” I don't want to hear about it and I don't want to talk about it,' " Dr. Kaufman says. "A lot of those patients listen to us and end up having active surveillance."

His center recommends active surveillance in about 25% to 30% of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, and "if you follow a precise active surveillance program, as we have our patients do, nobody gets into trouble," he says.

The study was sponsored by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Institute of New Jersey, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Dr. Kaufman, and Dr. Kantoff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1256-1261."


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 October 2011)

Did you guys know tooth cavities can heal themselves?
Check this out before your dentist extracts another grand from your wallet!!  

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html


----------



## Logique (8 October 2011)

Fish, steak, eggs, potatos and butter. High fives all round for the men!

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html
"..If I were to design the ultimate dietary program to heal cavities that incorporates the successes of both doctors, it would look something like this:

Rich in animal foods, particularly full-fat pastured dairy products (if tolerated). Also meat, organs, fish, bone broths and eggs.

Fermented grains only; no unfermented grains such as oatmeal, breakfast cereal, crackers, etc. No breads except true sourdough (ingredients should not list lactic acid). Or even better, no grains at all. 

Limited nuts; beans in moderation, only if they're soaked overnight or longer in warm water (due to the phytic acid).

Starchy vegetables such as potatoes and sweet potatoes.

A limited quantity of fruit (one piece per day or less), but no refined sweets.

Cooked and raw vegetables.

Sunlight, high-vitamin cod liver oil or vitamin D3 supplements.

A generous amount of pastured butter. 

No industrially processed food.."


----------



## motorway (8 October 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Did you guys know tooth cavities can heal themselves?
> Check this out before your dentist extracts another grand from your wallet!!
> 
> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html




Although the original mechanism proposed for UVB and 
vitamin D related to calcium metabolism, the effect is at least as 
likely to involve vitamin D and its induction of the antimicrobials cathelicidin and defensins as already noted to be important in 
periodontis.

 In recent years several papers have discussed how 
cathelicidin and defensins reduce the risk of dental caries through 
attacking oral bacteria linked to dental caries.

 However, these papers apparently did not discuss the involvement of vitamin 
D in the process. These polypeptides reduce the risk of several 
other types of bacterial infections, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, and severe sepsis.

* In 1928, Mellanby stated “It 
is interesting to note that even in sections of teeth in which caries 
appears to be completely arrested the dentinal tubules may contain 
micro-organisms. These, however, are apparently inactive.”*"

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/dermatoendocrinology/Grant2DE3-3.pdf

motorway


----------



## noco (8 October 2011)

kimcasablancas said:


> I didn't really mean that it would get rid of the cold, but I just meant that things like mint tea will soothe your sore throat as good as anything while you wait it out




At the first sign of a sore throat, mix a cup full of grape fruit juice, 1/2 teaspoon of honey and 1/2 teaspoon of cayenne pepper and used as a gargle on the hour every hour for 6 hours (DON'T SWALLOW IT) will cure that sore throat.


----------



## sails (28 January 2012)

No wonder people reach for alternative medicines - below is one of the lists of side effects, warnings and precautions for antipsychotic medications:

*Warnings and precautions*

Children, the elderly, persons with liver and/or kidney disease and those taking medications that raise antipsychotic blood levels may need lower dosages and may be more susceptible to adverse effects at standard dosages.

The safety of antipsychotics during pregnancy or breastfeeding is not well studied. Most experts believe that use of high-potency typical antipsychotics such as haloperidol or fluphenazine (which have not been linked with specific congenital abnormalities) is warranted in pregnant women with moderate to severe psychotic symptoms. Low-potency typical antipsychotics have been associated with a 20 percent to 30 percent increase in risk of congenital abnormalities overall. The safety of atypical antipsychotics during pregnancy and breast-feeding is not yet known.

Because antipsychotics (particularly clozapine) may induce seizures, persons with epilepsy should use antipsychotics only while taking anti-epileptic drugs under supervision of a neurologist.

People with Parkinson’s disease are highly susceptible to muscular side effects of antipsychotics (such as stiffness, spasm or tremor). Although atypical antipsychotics are less likely to cause those adverse effects in general, they may still produce them in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Olanzapine, clozapine and quetiapine are considered less likely than risperidone to cause muscular side effects in persons with Parkinson’s disease

Although all medications have potential to suppress bone marrow, clozapine has a high risk of doing so. Therefore, persons taking clozapine require frequent blood cell counts. Also, persons taking other medications that may suppress bone marrow (such as carbamazepine) should avoid treatment with clozapine. 

Persons taking medications that can increase antipsychotic blood levels should use antipsychotic medications cautiously to reduce risk of antipsychotic adverse effects.

*Adverse effects of antipsychotics*

Although all antipsychotics have been reported to induce similar adverse effects, their likelihood of inducing particular adverse effects differ. Common adverse effects and the drugs likely to cause them are:

*Sedation*””Among typical antipsychotics, sleepiness or fatigue is more likely to occur in persons taking “low potency” antipsychotics (so-called because higher doses are needed for antipsychotic effects). For example, the low-potency antipsychotics Thorazine ® and Mellaril ® are more likely to cause sleepiness and fatigue than are high-potency drugs such as Prolixin ®, Stelazine ®, Navane ® and Haldol ®.

Persons taking other medications that cause sedation (such as Tegretol ®, Depakote ®, Klonopin ® and other benzodiazepines, Remeron ®, trazodone) are at greater risk of developing sedation while taking antipsychotics.

*Anticholinergic side effects* (dry mouth, dilated pupils, rapid heart rate, constipation, difficulty urinating)””Among typical antipsychotics, low-potency drugs are more likely to cause anticholinergic side effects than high-potency drugs.

Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ® and Seroquel ® are more likely to cause anticholinergic side effects than Risperdal ®. Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ® and Seroquel ® generally cause less severe anticholinergic effects than do low-potency typical antipsychotics.

Persons who are dehydrated and persons taking other medications with anticholinergic side effects (such as Cogentin ® or Artane ®) are at greater risk for developing anticholinergic side effects while taking antipsychotics.

*Postural hypotension* (lightheadedness upon sitting up or standing)””As with sedation and anticholinergic side effects, postural hypotension is more likely to occur with low- rather than higher- potency drugs. Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, Seroquel ® and Geodon ® are more likely to cause postural hypotension than Risperdal ® or Abilify ®. Persons who have low blood pressure and persons who are dehydrated are at greater risk for postural hypotension while taking antipsychotics.

*Weight gain* can occur with all antipsychotic drugs, but appears most likely with low potency typical antipsychotics. Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, and, to some degree, Risperdal ® appear most likely to cause weight gain. This weight gain is sometimes associated with high blood sugar and fat levels. Seroquel ®, Geodon ® and Abilify ® appear less likely to cause weight gain. Persons who are obese and those who are taking other drugs that cause weight gain (such as lithium or Depakote ®) are at greater risk for gaining weight during treatment with antipsychotics.

*Metabolic syndrome*””A growing concern is the increased prevalence of diabetes and high cholesterol, often accompanying weight gain, in people taking atypical antipsychotics. This syndrome deserves serious attention due to the known long-term health effects. All persons taking atypical antipsychotic medication should be screened for diabetes and high cholesterol prior to starting these medications and at least every six months as long as they are taking these medications. When metabolic syndrome occurs, its treatment should be shared between psychiatrist and primary care physician in order to obtain the best effect of medications for schizophrenia while minimizing long-term health risks.

*Extrapyramidal adverse effects*

This side effect category comprises dystonia (sudden severe muscle stiffness, often of the eyes, jaw or neck), generalized muscle stiffness, bradykinesia (slowed movements), tremor, “mask facies” (blank facial expression) and akathisia (an unpleasant, restless feeling particularly in the legs, alleviated by movement).

Extrapyramidal adverse effects are more likely to occur in persons taking high-potency typical antipsychotics such as Haldol ®, Prolixin ®, Navane ®, Trilafon ® and Stelazine ®. They are less likely to occur in persons taking low-potency drugs such as Mellaril ®, Serentil ® or Thorazine ®, and least likely to occur in persons taking the atypical antipsychotics Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, Risperdal ®, Seroquel ®, Geodon ® and Abilify ®. However, when Risperdal is used at doses higher than 6 mg. per day, extrapyramidal adverse effects are more common. 

*Less common and rare adverse effects:*

*Seizures*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may increase the likelihood of seizures in persons with epilepsy, in persons taking high antipsychotic dosages and in persons taking antipsychotics with other drugs that may increase antipsychotic blood levels. Clozaril ® may be more likely to induce seizures than other antipsychotics.

*Allergic reactions*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may cause allergic symptoms such as rash, hives, swelling and/or difficulty breathing. Allergic symptoms usually occur within the first three months and may occur at low as well as higher dosages.

*Sensitivity to sunlight*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may increase sensitivity to sunlight and cause sunburn. Increased sun sensitivity can occur at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Liver toxicity*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may cause liver problems, which may manifest as yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes (jaundice) or as abnormally high levels of liver enzymes in the blood. Liver problems can appear at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Bone marrow toxicity*””Clozapine ® has the highest risk of bone marrow toxicity, which manifests as an abnormally low white blood cell count during mandatory blood cell monitoring. Persons who have bone marrow toxicity may develop high fever and sore throat due to inability to fight off infection. Both low and high dosages can cause bone marrow toxicity, which is most likely to occur within the first 18 months of treatment.

*Priapism* (sustained, painful erection or engorgement of the clitoris)””Low potency antipsychotics may be more likely to cause this rare adverse effect. Some cases have been reported with atypical antipsychotics.

*Heart rhythm abnormalities*””Although clinically insignificant changes in EKG may occur in persons taking any antipsychotic drug, serious heart rhythm abnormalities are rare. Such abnormalities may be more common in persons taking thioridazine (Mellaril ®) and show up as sudden lightheadedness, shortness of breath and/or chest pain.

*Confusion and hallucinations*””This adverse effect (sometimes called central anticholinergic syndrome) is more likely to occur in persons taking very high doses of low potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when they are prescribed with Cogentin ® or Artane ®.

*Hyperprolactinemia*””This refers to high levels of the hormone prolactin, whose secretion by the pituitary is increased by many antipsychotic drugs. High prolactin levels may be associated with low sex drive, sexual dysfunction, missed or irregular menstrual periods, and, over a long term, loss of bone density. All typical antipsychotics cause significant increases in plasma prolactin levels, with high potency drugs more likely to do so. With the exception of Risperdal ®, which has been reported to cause large increases in plasma prolactin in some people, atypical antipsychotics are less likely to increase prolactin levels.

continued...


----------



## sails (28 January 2012)

2nd post - wouldn't fit into one post...

*Less common and rare adverse effects:*

*Seizures*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may increase the likelihood of seizures in persons with epilepsy, in persons taking high antipsychotic dosages and in persons taking antipsychotics with other drugs that may increase antipsychotic blood levels. Clozaril ® may be more likely to induce seizures than other antipsychotics.

*Allergic reactions*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may cause allergic symptoms such as rash, hives, swelling and/or difficulty breathing. Allergic symptoms usually occur within the first three months and may occur at low as well as higher dosages.

*Sensitivity to sunlight*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may increase sensitivity to sunlight and cause sunburn. Increased sun sensitivity can occur at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Liver toxicity*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may cause liver problems, which may manifest as yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes (jaundice) or as abnormally high levels of liver enzymes in the blood. Liver problems can appear at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Bone marrow toxicity*””Clozapine ® has the highest risk of bone marrow toxicity, which manifests as an abnormally low white blood cell count during mandatory blood cell monitoring. Persons who have bone marrow toxicity may develop high fever and sore throat due to inability to fight off infection. Both low and high dosages can cause bone marrow toxicity, which is most likely to occur within the first 18 months of treatment.

*Priapism* (sustained, painful erection or engorgement of the clitoris)””Low potency antipsychotics may be more likely to cause this rare adverse effect. Some cases have been reported with atypical antipsychotics.

*Heart rhythm abnormalities*””Although clinically insignificant changes in EKG may occur in persons taking any antipsychotic drug, serious heart rhythm abnormalities are rare. Such abnormalities may be more common in persons taking thioridazine (Mellaril ®) and show up as sudden lightheadedness, shortness of breath and/or chest pain.

*Confusion and hallucinations*””This adverse effect (sometimes called central anticholinergic syndrome) is more likely to occur in persons taking very high doses of low potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when they are prescribed with Cogentin ® or Artane ®.

*Hyperprolactinemia*””This refers to high levels of the hormone prolactin, whose secretion by the pituitary is increased by many antipsychotic drugs. High prolactin levels may be associated with low sex drive, sexual dysfunction, missed or irregular menstrual periods, and, over a long term, loss of bone density. All typical antipsychotics cause significant increases in plasma prolactin levels, with high potency drugs more likely to do so. With the exception of Risperdal ®, which has been reported to cause large increases in plasma prolactin in some people, atypical antipsychotics are less likely to increase prolactin levels.

Less common or rare extrapyramidal adverse effects

These adverse effects include neuroleptic malignant syndrome (a potentially life-threatening occurrence characterized by fever, abnormal movements, changes in heart rate and/or blood pressure, changes in mental status and abnormal blood chemistry values), and tardive motor syndromes during long-term treatment. Tardive motor syndromes include tardive dyskinesia (involuntary movements, usually of the tongue, lips and/or jaw), tardive dystonia (muscle spasms), tardive akathisia (restlessness) and tardive tics (sudden twitches or movements).

Risks of both *neuroleptic malignant syndrome* and *tardive motor syndromes* are higher in persons taking higher dosages. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is more likely to occur in younger persons (particularly men) taking high-potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when prescribed with lithium. Low blood iron levels also may increase risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Nevertheless, neuroleptic malignant syndrome also has been reported in persons taking low-potency typical antipsychotics and in persons taking atypical antipsychotics.

Tardive motor syndromes are thought to be much more likely to occur in persons taking typical antipsychotics, although they have been reported in persons taking atypical antipsychotics. Women and elderly persons are at greater risk for tardive motor syndromes.

https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=4100


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 March 2012)

THE NHMRC is expected to release a statement today in relation to fresh media reports the council may advise that treating patients with homeopathy is “unethical”.

Fairfax newspapers reported this morning the council had prepared a draft public statement declaring it was ''unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy [because it] has been shown not to be efficacious''.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Not efficacious?!  Well sure, everyone knows homeopathy is a wank, but what about all the myriad other treatments that haven't been shown to be efficacious?  For example surgery is one of the least studied interventions in the medical world.  You could count the number of randomized controlled trials of surgery in the last century on one hand.  If you're going to rub out a profession, you can't use efficacy as the grounds for this.  LOL dumbasses!


----------



## Julia (15 March 2012)

Well, any effort to expose homeopathy for what it is, is welcome imo.


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Well, any effort to expose homeopathy for what it is, is welcome imo.




And I hope there is just as much effort to expose the off-label use of mental health medications that have horrific and potentially life destroying side effects.  Some of the unpleasant neurological side effects can be permanent such as Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and Tardive dyskinesia.

Tardive dyskinesia

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome

I don't understand homeopathy, but I do understand nutritional medicine.  It is already difficult to buy some nutritional supplements in this country and yet they have helped my daughter to survive the very nasty withdrawals of both Seroquel and now Pristiq. 

Is homeopathy really more dangereous than these types of medications which can also cause people to want to end their lives? (as per their own black box warnings on their literature and I have seen it in action, unfortunately).

I think the powers that be should be cleaning up this side of things asap and before focusing on the possibly harmless homeopathy.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 March 2012)

sails there's something you're not understanding.

Let's say you have high blood pressure.  Your doc puts you on BP meds and your BP comes down.  Then you read on the net that certain BP meds can upset your potassium levels and you think to yourself: "that's not good, I better get off these!"  So then you try to come off the meds that your body needs, and what happens?  Your BP rises and you have a heart attack (let say, as an example).  You then mistakenly say "look what these meds do... they caused this heart attack!  Withdrawal symptoms from BP meds are horrendous".  But the heart attack is not a withdrawal symptom, it's just that you needed the meds to keep your BP down.  Then you look on the net and find more examples of people who have had the same experience and you believe that maybe nutritional supplements can help you (very unlikely).  It gets quite messy.  Can you see the correlation with your relative's situation?


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> sails there's something you're not understanding.
> 
> Let's say you have high blood pressure.  Your doc puts you on BP meds and your BP comes down.  Then you read on the net that certain BP meds can upset your potassium levels and you think to yourself: "that's not good, I better get off these!"  So then you try to come off the meds that your body needs, and what happens?  Your BP rises and you have a heart attack (let say, as an example).  You then mistakenly say "look what these meds do... they caused this heart attack!  Withdrawal symptoms from BP meds are horrendous".  But the heart attack is not a withdrawal symptom, it's just that you needed the meds to keep your BP down.  Then you look on the net and find more examples of people who have had the same experience and you believe that maybe nutritional supplements can help you (very unlikely).  It gets quite messy.  Can you see the correlation with your relative's situation?





GB - absolutely NO correlation.  Nothing to do with it.  I have no problems with meds that actually help or cure people.  These psychiatric meds do not seem to cure and can potentially leave someone with far worse symptoms than their original ones.

Blood pressure medication and giving someone somethig like seroquel to help them sleep is no comparison.  It is you that is missing the point.

Giving someone seroquel to help with sleep is like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb.  The potential side effects absolutely outweigh any good it might do.  And when seroquel affects dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, histamine and goodness knows what other brain transmitters, it is no wonder people can go through withdrawals worse than street drugs.

Sorry, but high blood pressure is in a totally different field to these potentially toxic mind bending medications.

Have you ever cared for or watched someone coming off this stuff?  It is astounding and scary.  If you haven't, then please leave your comments for something you know about and stop trying to be a know-it-all.


----------



## Julia (15 March 2012)

Sails, I absolutely don't want to get into further argument about your recent very dreadful experience.   I know it has been unbelievably distressing for you.

But you've made the point yourself that the problem has been the *off label use*.
I agree entirely that this should be addressed.  Imo it's totally inappropriate that a potent antipsychotic agent was used to combat insomnia.

However, the unpleasant reality remains that people with florid manic-depressive (bipolar) illness often need these agents to control their more extreme symptoms, these being so life threatening and dreadful that they have no choice other than to tolerate the side effects.

So, yes, you're right to suggest attention should be given to the inappropriate prescribing of any drug.


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Sails, I absolutely don't want to get into further argument about your recent very dreadful experience.   I know it has been unbelievably distressing for you.
> 
> But you've made the point yourself that the problem has been the *off label use*.
> I agree entirely that this should be addressed.  Imo it's totally inappropriate that a potent antipsychotic agent was used to combat insomnia.
> ...





Julia, you have explained it perfectly..thankyou...

I have no problem in these drugs being used in extreme cases and preferably as a last resort.  

Unbelievably, I was put on Endep simply to help me with sleep about four years ago when things started to get difficult.  I was told it was non-addictive and, without doing any research at the time, I understood it was something quite mild.

I started off at 10mgs and then last year that was upped to 25mgs.  Since all this has happened, I have decided I don't want medications messing with my serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake and blocking the cholinergic system.  Some weeks ago, I dropped from 25mgs to 20.  Went to bed as normal only to be woken a couple of hours later with jerking legs and dreadful burning pain in my feet and sleep was gone for the night.  So, I had to up the dose to 22.5 for a few weeks.  I'm now down to 15mgs with some difficulty.  Having to take it very slowly due to the other pressures.

I had no depression, was perfectly healthy and, imo, should never had had this stuff.


----------



## awg (15 March 2012)

I agree with both of the last 2 posts.

Experienced medical professionals are well aware of the negative side-effects of anti-psychotics, their simple answer is untreated symptons are worse than the side-effects.

I would need to be personally convinced in my own mind that any medication has overall benefit to me.

Like most professionals, if you are percieved to question their judgement, you will get short thrift


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 March 2012)

sails you didn't even know what 'off label' meant until I explained it.

And it seems you still don't understand the difference between 'withdrawal' and 'discontinuation' symptoms.

It's obvious that no one would choose medications over psychotherapy, but sometimes that's necessary.  If you or your daughter presented to your doctor in a huge flap about not being able to sleep, maybe he thought you needed some help.  The most common cause of insomnia is anxiety and depression.  I assume you know this?  Relying on hand-wringing forum posters for advice is fraught with danger.  You'll just end up digging a bigger hole for yourself.


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> sails you didn't even know what 'off label' meant until I explained it.




Yes, you are correct.  I was in a steep learning curve at that time, however, I now not only know the theory, I have seen first hand what damage they can do.  I have spoken with other people who have come of these types of antipsychotics over these last few weeks and some have been inflicted with the nasty, permanent disabilities that they never had to begin with.  Some were only given seroquel for sleep - and at low doses.  Homeopathy would have to be tame in comparison, imo.  I'm not into homeopathy, but the diluted doses seem pretty benign to me.



> And it seems you still don't understand the difference between 'withdrawal' and 'discontinuation' symptoms.




Yes I do.  "discontinuation" symptoms is simply a polite word for withdrawal.  There is no denying that what my daughter has gone through is withdrawal.  Call it what you like, but a polite name does not make it better or lessen it's impact.  I have a nursing background and both father and brother as doctors.  I grew up in the medical world and is the reason I was so trusting.  In my nursing days, the aim was to try and heal people...



> It's obvious that no one would choose medications over psychotherapy, but sometimes that's necessary.  If you or your daughter presented to your doctor in a huge flap about not being able to sleep, maybe he thought you needed some help.  The most common cause of insomnia is anxiety and depression.  I assume you know this?  Relying on hand-wringing forum posters for advice is fraught with danger.  You'll just end up digging a bigger hole for yourself.




No huge flap as you suggest.  Having trouble sleeping - she was already on pristiq and the insomnia was probably made worse with pristiq.  If you read the sad stories of people who have come off this stuff, so many were on it purely for sleeping.  That is NOT for which it was approved by the FDA.

Well, the GP had no advice on how to come off it.  Pretty much to ride it through.  I took in the research I had gleaned from the internet and he listened to it - to his credit.  Due to my research, he gave her periactin and other medication to help soften the effects of the withdrawal.  Oh and btw, he calls it "withdrawal"...lol lol lol

Stick to stuff you know, GB.  You are waaaayyy out of your depth here. I very much doubt you have had first hand experience watching a loved one go through such hellish torment.  Seroquel is often named SeroHELL by those who have gone through withdrawal.

Oh, and she her her GP today.  He commented how much better she is already articulating.  Her speech is more animated - and she is only two months off seroquel and 2.5 weeks off Pristiq.  It seems there is hope yet.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 March 2012)

Withdrawal refers in particular to addictive drugs.  Addictive drugs are those which the body needs more and more of over time in order to feel the same benefit.  Most prescription meds are not addictive.  Pristiq for example is not addictive.  All doctors go to great lengths to avoid prescribing anything that is addictive.  Occasionally drugs that have addictive potential are used for the short term relief (eg. some anxiolytics and strong pain killers).

Since insomnia is commonly a symptom of anxiety/depression, it's quite normal and usual to be prescribed an antidepressant such as Pristiq or Endep or offered a viable alternative such as psychotherapy.  Endep would usually be preferred since it is sedating (for most people) as opposed to Pristiq/Effexor, since these are 'activating' (for most people, not everyone).  

Most GPs would not consider using Seroquel for insomnia as a first line therapy.  If you think he put you on the wrong drug, get a new doctor or at the very least question him about it.  You have plenty of complaints about my responses to your comments here, but do you actually get down to nuts and bolts with the person who's supposed to be looking after you, or do you spend the whole time telling him about what someone said online?  

You seem to think I am perhaps underestimating the effect discontinuation can cause people, but that's a wrong assumption.  She went through _real _hell and so did you.... yes and??  She was suicidal!  Yes....and?  I mean, **** happens right??  And it happened to you and her.  There's probably someone in the world right now who is bleeding to death because she took aspirin and it wasn't the right thing to do...yes aspirin.  Stop whingeing about it all, educate yourself as to the proper course of treatment (not alternative methods by and large), find a new doctor and get on with it.  This is stuff I know about, thanks....still, you'll do what you think is best.

These drugs can be very disruptive when prescribed for the wrong condition, or where the patient's physiology isn't a good match.  *BUT they save countless lives,* far far more lives than they disrupt.  You won't read about that online.  If you can manage to treat yourself with lifestyle changes and a better diet and less negative thinking GREAT!!!  DO IT.


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Withdrawal refers in particular to addictive drugs.  Addictive drugs are those which the body needs more and more of over time in order to feel the same benefit. ...




Exactly.  

Then tell me why Pristiq often poops out after a few months and so up goes the dose?  Addictive???

Tell me why seroquel no longer works either after a while and what starts of at a 25mg dose can go up near 1,000 mgs over time?  Addictive???

If that's not an example of your definition of addictive, I don't know what is.  

Some have tried to WITHDRAW only to find the awful sleep deprivation drives them back on to it again.  Just because it's a prescription medication doesn't mean it doesn't behave in a similar fashion to some street drugs when it comes to WITHDRAWAL.

In my daughter's case she had to come off due to side effects, however the WITHDRAWAL symptoms became dangereous and we had to get her off it cold turkey and by using other less damaging medications to help wean her off.

If the internet is such a dreadful source of information, then tell me why I could educate myself from reading the blogs of sufferers who were able to get themselves off it and was able to use the information to minimise the danger?  

If the interent is such a dreadful place - why are you here at ASF?  We all know you get to know other posters.  Same with this medical stuff - you can find those with consistent posts - who reported the good days, the bad days and the sheer frightening days.  They reported how they survived.

There is another thread out there of people wanting to kill them selves with this medication.  Now, that's real inspiring.  I wonder how many have suicided - could it be that more do suicide than it helps?  Do the pharma companies include this in their research?

I asked the doctor if AstraZeneca had actually done any trials on the best method of WITHDRAWAL - even if they call it the polite name of "discontinuation", I don't care as long as they did proper trials.  The doctor shrugged his shoulders and read out the little three sentence paragraph on "discontinuation" that resembles absolutely nothing like it can be in real life.

My faith in the medical profession treating depression has been shattered.  I believe I have been running around in circles for nearly four years while my daughter's brain has been trapped with these medications.  What if her nutritional levels of serotonin and norepinephrine had been raised with supplements?  It is highly possibly her two girls might have had more of their mother instead of the seroquelled zombie she had become.


----------



## sails (15 March 2012)

awg said:


> I agree with both of the last 2 posts.
> 
> Experienced medical professionals are well aware of the negative side-effects of anti-psychotics, their simple answer is untreated symptons are worse than the side-effects.
> 
> ...




Thanks AWG - nice to read a logical post...

I have posted our story because it might help someone stop and think before taking these sorts of medication for something other than extreme mania.


----------



## Julia (15 March 2012)

A large part of this problem is that patients do on the whole simply accept whatever their GP prescribes.  Often they are taking several pills with no real understanding of what each is for and what the potential side effects are.  People need to learn to ask questions of their doctors.

There are a few people here who obviously have an understanding of and familiarity with pharmaceuticals, but the vast majority of people still function on blind trust.
It's particularly worrying, imo, that GPs are so free with their use of specialised psychiatric medication and - as Sails has experienced - are often using it totally inappropriately.

I know insomnia is uncomfortable ( I endure it frequently), but a bit more encouragement to people to just ride it out instead of taking potent medications to avoid some wakeful hours will usually see an eventual return to sleep when the level of tiredness is sufficiently great.  Meantime, get some good reading material, listen to what's often good radio in the small hours, and I reckon most folk will feel better on fewer hours of sleep than if drugged into a zombie like state by some inappropriate potent medication.


----------



## macca (16 March 2012)

After reading about the common usage of Xanax by celebrities I have a feeling this addiction to prescription drugs is only going to get worse. To discuss it openly may well help others realise that they are dam* hard to get off once you are on them

"Withdrawal, discontinuation" to the uninitiated sounds like saying "vertically challenged" rather than "short" both mean the same thing to Joe Public IMO


----------



## Tink (16 March 2012)

Good on you sails for sharing and glad to hear your daughter is well, the internet has been a wonderful tool
Agree awg, questioning doctors can be a task.
Amazing what you can do when its a loved one.


----------



## sails (16 March 2012)

Julia said:


> A large part of this problem is that patients do on the whole simply accept whatever their GP prescribes.  Often they are taking several pills with no real understanding of what each is for and what the potential side effects are.  People need to learn to ask questions of their doctors.
> 
> There are a few people here who obviously have an understanding of and familiarity with pharmaceuticals, but the vast majority of people still function on blind trust.
> It's particularly worrying, imo, that GPs are so free with their use of specialised psychiatric medication and - as Sails has experienced - are often using it totally inappropriately.
> ...




Totally agree, Julia.  I can't believe how "fogged" I have felt on Endep and has probably contributed to the degree of difficulty for myself over these last four years of being in a caring role.  I absolutely agree that a few hours of natural sleep is far more refreshing than long hours of a zombied sleep. 

Once I am rid of Endep (probably months away due to the nasty withdrawal side effects means about 1mg decrease per two weeks), I will put up with any insomnia.  Will do everything possible to help cirdadian rythym as I believe these types of medications upset that badly.

Unfortunately, doctors are quite happy to prescribe these "non-addictive" medications.  IMO, it's a case of patient beware when it comes to prescription medication for sleep and mild anxieties.





macca said:


> After reading about the common usage of Xanax by celebrities I have a feeling this addiction to prescription drugs is only going to get worse. To discuss it openly may well help others realise that they are dam* hard to get off once you are on them
> 
> "Withdrawal, discontinuation" to the uninitiated sounds like saying "vertically challenged" rather than "short" both mean the same thing to Joe Public IMO




Yes Macca - I felt it only right to discuss this openly.  If it spares just one person going through the grief we have been through, it will be worth it...

And agree, if it's withdrawal or discontinuation - it means the same thing.  The drug has been stopped and the person is suffering from the effects of stopping.  I don't understand GB getting hung up over what it's called.  Obviously has never been through it or watched a family member go through it.





Tink said:


> Good on you sails for sharing and glad to hear your daughter is well, the internet has been a wonderful tool
> Agree awg, questioning doctors can be a task.
> Amazing what you can do when its a loved one.




Thanks Tink! I don't know if my daughter would still be with us without the internet.  I gained a good understanding of what to expect (although I didn't tell her everything).  I remember one middle of the night call when she just couldn't handle it any more, I said, "this is normal - this is exactly what most others have felt".  It helped her at the time to know it wasn't her - it was the medication withdrawal.

 I am not the idiot that GB seems to insinuate simply because I have searched for information on the internet, thoroughly researched anything useful and looked for people who have travelled this road before us and then took the nuts and bolts of said research to the GP who has frequently complimented me on  my efforts.

Unfortunately, my daughter is still on a withdrawal roller coaster, imo.  I have heard the rule of thumb with seroquel is probably about a month of withdrawal for every year of being on it.  She has only been off it two months so far and was on it for three and a half years.  She is coming up for three weeks off pristiq on Monday next week, so it's still early days yet and it's withdrawal side effects are not nice.  Physical symptoms such as nausea, dizziess, brain zaps, buzzing in the ears, hot flushes then feeling very cold - and of course, the psychological effects of a scrambled brain.  But the signs of healing are there and can been seen on her better days.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (7 May 2012)

Some natural foods are great.  Garlic, for example.

Source: J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; online 1 May

A COMPOUND in garlic is 100 times more powerful than erythromycin or ciprofloxacin in combating Campylobacter infection, say scientists.

The compound, diallyl sulphide, is able to pierce a protective biofilm employed by the bacteria to protect itself and aid colonisation leading to food poisoning.

The scientists looked at the ability of diallyl sulphide to kill Campylobacter jejuni bacteria when they join together to form a slimy biofilm, finding the compound swiftly penetrated the film by targeting a metabolic enzyme.

It worked faster and was 100 times more effective than the antibiotics in killing the bacteria, they found.

Researcher Dr Michael Konkel, from Washington State University, has been investigating Campylobacter for 25 years, and believes his discovery will open the door to new protective treatments for raw and processed meats and for food preparation surfaces.

“This is the first step in developing or thinking about new intervention strategies,” he said.

“Campylobacter is simply the most common bacterial cause of food-borne illness in the United States and probably the world.”

The bacteria also triggers nearly a third of cases of Guillain-BarrÃ© syndrome.

Dr Konkel pointed out that while eating garlic was generally healthy, it was unlikely to prevent Campylobacter gastrointestinal illness.

But the team believes its diallyl sulphide ingredient could be extracted and used in products, including preservatives in packaged foods like salads and deli meats.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2012)

It doesn't say how much garlic you'd have to eat to constitute a therapeutic dose.


----------



## CanOz (7 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Some natural foods are great.  Garlic, for example.




I hate Garlic! 

As a kid i never ate garlic, my dad hated it. As i got older and learned how to cook i ate it in everything, my favorite being roast lamb with rosemary. 

Just before i left Australia, i realized that it was garlic that was making me quite sick now and then. Especially raw garlic. Unfortunately i also moved to Northern China where raw garlic is in everything! Its in their salads, their potatoes, their cabbage, their breath!

When i moved South i discovered they don't use it as much down here, and my wife also hates it (that's why i married her).

Most Chinese still can't believe it makes me sick, they insist its good for me!

CanOz


----------



## johenmo (11 May 2012)

Drug interactions are becoming more of a concern.  With stats like 30% of Australians on statin drugs, this means that a large portion of the country should be avoiding grapefruit.  Garlic is also to be avoided with some pharmaceuticals - can't recall them all as there are many of them but aspirin is one - antiplatelet activity from garlic - as is warfarin.

We have to be more aware of what's in things - energy drinks for example - and manage our medical ppl, including specialists.  Some alt medicines are good, some are aren't.  I feel sorry for those who don't have the ability to determine what's what.

FWIW, PPIs are being heavily prescribed and ppl are being left on them.  I would have been until I told the Dr that surely by now I can stop taking them.  he agreed!!  one less cost and one less drug 4 the body.

BTW -  I LOVE garlic... but eat in moderation 'cause not everyone likes the smell of it!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 May 2012)

Another good one.  Krill oil lowers cholesterol very effectively... perhaps even better than synthetic cholesterol lowering drugs according to some sources.  This is from Pubmed.  See *bold*.

______________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of the effects of Neptune Krill Oil on the clinical course of hyperlipidemia.
Bunea R, El Farrah K, Deutsch L.
Source

Department of Internal Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To assess the effects of krill oil on blood lipids, specifically total cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL).
METHODS:

A multi-center, three-month, prospective, randomized study followed by a three-month, controlled follow-up of patients treated with 1 g and 1.5 g krill oil daily. Patients with hyperlipidemia able to maintain a healthy diet and with blood cholesterol levels between 194 and 348 mg per dL were eligible for enrollment in the trial. A sample size of 120 patients (30 patients per group) was randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group A received krill oil at a body mass index (BMI)-dependent daily dosage of 2-3 g daily. Patients in Group B were given 1-1.5 g krill oil daily, and Group C was given fish oil containing 180 mg eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 120 mg docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) per gram of oil at a dose of 3 g daily. Group D was given a placebo containing microcrystalline cellulose. The krill oil used in this study was Neptune Krill Oil, provided by Neptune Technologies and Bioresources, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
OUTCOME MEASURES:

Primary parameters tested (baseline and 90-day visit) were total blood cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, HDL, and glucose.
RESULTS:

Krill oil 1-3 g per day (BMI-dependent) was found to be effective for the reduction of glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, and HDL, compared to both fish oil and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS:

*The results of the present study demonstrate within high levels of confidence that krill oil is effective for the management of hyperlipidemia by significantly reducing total cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides, and increasing HDL levels.* At lower and equal doses, krill oil was significantly more effective than fish oil for the reduction of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL levels.


----------



## prawn_86 (11 May 2012)

I dont take many medicines, alternative or not, but we did recently try San Pedro cactus tea (aka Peyote) recently in South America. That is said to be a cure all...


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2012)

johenmo said:


> BTW -  I LOVE garlic... but eat in moderation 'cause not everyone likes the smell of it!




Been known to like the odd Vindaloo too!:burn:

CanOz


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 May 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont take many medicines, alternative or not, but we did recently try San Pedro cactus tea (aka Peyote) recently in South America. That is said to be a cure all...




:  Did you see visions of Don Juan?


----------



## prawn_86 (11 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> :  Did you see visions of Don Juan?




Very mild for me personally. See our blog in my sig for more details


----------



## motorway (11 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Another good one.  Krill oil lowers cholesterol very effectively... perhaps even better than synthetic cholesterol lowering drugs according to some sources.  This is from Pubmed.  See *bold*.




GB have a look at this

related to your link

The difference between an extracted oil  devoid of the maybe important factors and whole foods with all those factors.

Krill Oil seems to contain more of these other factors
same with green lipped mussel.

Fish oil is too distilled and refined.

This researchers work is eye opening esp on the dangers of Polyunsaturated oils.

*Furan fatty acids: occurrence, synthesis, and reactions. Are furan fatty acids responsible for the cardioprotective effects of a fish diet?*

"Fish and other marine organisms as well as mammals consume F-acids in their food and incorporate them into phospholipids and cholesterol esters.

Phospholipids = Krill Oil , But not common fish oil supplements.

It is why fish oil  supplement studies do not show the same benefits of eating whole fish.

Motorway

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296395


----------



## medicowallet (11 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Some natural foods are great.  Garlic, for example.
> 
> Source: J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; online 1 May
> 
> ...




Excellent, now all we need is a good pharmaceutical company to devise a way to manufacture this compound in a mass-production method..

probably with a few chemical bond changes to make it MORE effective still, and MORE stable, and SAFER

Then they will devise the best dosage form possible,

Then get the PROPER cinical trials to help provide some protection to the consumer,

THEN 
AT THE END
AFTER 100s of millions,

We will have a medication which will be POSSIBLY more effective in treating a bacteria which, at the moment does NOT get treated with antibiotics a vast vast majority of the time,

hence GBS incidence will not decrease, and very few people will feel better taking a tablet which kills their campylobacter (and possibly normal flora / provide side effects ) and the end result will note even result in a decrease in the duration of the symptoms.

In all, for the campylobacter use, quite a waste of time really (unless its properties help treat some infection that can make a difference in the real world)

MW


----------



## medicowallet (11 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> CONCLUSIONS:
> 
> *The results of the present study demonstrate within high levels of confidence that krill oil is effective for the management of hyperlipidemia by significantly reducing total cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides, and increasing HDL levels.* At lower and equal doses, krill oil was significantly more effective than fish oil for the reduction of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL levels.




What did the clinical trials say about reduction in mortality?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 May 2012)

The article is just letting us know that garlic has some potent anti-bacterial agents, _which they may still find will work in raw form_...  They won't be spending any time studying that though, because there's no money in it.  Can't patent garlic.

re: krill oil, it didn't say anything about changes in mortality.  The lipid-mortality association has already been established.  So you can just link the two together.

If you don't want to take either of these, I don't mind.


----------



## medicowallet (11 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The article is just letting us know that garlic has some potent anti-bacterial agents, _which they may still find will work in raw form_...  They won't be spending any time studying that though, because there's no money in it.  Can't patent garlic.
> 
> re: krill oil, it didn't say anything about changes in mortality.  The lipid-mortality association has already been established.  So you can just link the two together.
> 
> If you don't want to take either of these, I don't mind.




Change a bond and develop a dosage form and you can get a market for it.  
Where do you think that a lot of medications come from? Plants.  

Garlic would have been studied an awful lot, and I wonder why there has not been much happening from it, possibly because the use atm is not really there.

"lipid-mortality association"... hmm, not exactly how some "lipid lowering" medications work.. Perhaps linking them together is not as easy as it sounds.

I don't need to take either, as I don't think campylobacter really needs to be treated with antibiotics (in rare cases yes)

And I don't have high (or low) cholesterol.

If you want to take them, then fine, but it is not prudent to suggest things with no evidence as therapeutic agents, merely, potentially preventative agents.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 May 2012)

Krill: If it don't krill you it will cruel you. What about the whales? Who ever heard of humans eating bloody krill.

This is a total nonsense, typical Balmain basketweaver stuff. 

gg


----------



## sails (11 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> ...probably with a few chemical bond changes to make it MORE effective still, and MORE stable, and SAFER...




And patentable?

And, it's about time something started to be done about this off-label (thanks GB!) use of powerful antipsychotics such as Seroquel which are patented and bring in billions of dollars in sales...grrrr.



> *Pentagon to limit antipsychotic drugs for PTSD*
> 
> The Pentagon is moving to limit off-label use of powerful anti-psychotic drugs for post-traumatic stress disorder ”” a practice some say may contribute to accidental drug overdoses among troops.
> 
> Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Jonathan Woodson sent a letter to the services in February asking military treatment facilities to monitor prescriptions of atypical antipsychotics like risperidone and quetiapine, marketed under the brand name Seroquel.




Read more: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/...-limit-anti-psychotic-drugs-for-ptsd-050312w/

Nutritional supplements have been around for years.  There are already indications of what people can take and what they can't.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> Excellent, now all we need is a good pharmaceutical company to devise a way to manufacture this compound in a mass-production method..
> 
> probably with a few chemical bond changes to make it MORE effective still, and MORE stable, and SAFER
> 
> ...




+1.


----------



## medicowallet (11 May 2012)

sails said:


> And patentable?
> 
> And, it's about time something started to be done about this off-label (thanks GB!) use of powerful antipsychotics such as Seroquel which are patented and bring in billions of dollars in sales...grrrr.




Patentable?  Yup, in many circumstances.  So if there is no progress, then it is probably not worth following through....  

Then you get the argument that P companies only want to make medications for conditions with high prevalence etc.. well in general I would prefer P companies to invest $500 million in a drug to help 500 million people than $500 million for a drug to treat 500 people  etc.. Not evil, not profit whoring, just sensible stuff.


As for off-label use, imo in most circumstances, the indications are evidence based, just not backed by the company.

For example, misoprostol is used for dilation of the cervix, it costs bugger all, whereas the alternative, dinoprostone (on label use) costs many times more.    So an off label product does the same job (in fact apparently better, although I have not ever given it)  and in reality, frees up funding to help save lives or improve QOL in other areas.. quite brilliant actually.

As for the Quetiapine, well my knowledge of antipsychotics aint what it used to be ( I am NOT a psychiatrist!) but its mechanism of action would definitely lend it to be used across a very wide range of conditions.  As long as these are evidence based, then on-label vs off-label may not be relevant.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (12 May 2012)

Julia I am not sure why you have such a hard on re alternative medicine.

Maybe you should look a little more closely at conventional western medicine if you want to look at the real damage being caused to people's health.

Do you know how many people are killed by prescription medications every year?
Do you know how many people's lifestyles are adversely affected by the side effects of prescription medications?

From the US between 2000 and 2010 according to the FDA 452,000 deaths and 2.8 million serious outcomes directly related to prescription drugs.

Not sure how many people overdosed on vitamins and alternative medicines but everytime there is a hint of a problem with any alternative product the media bombards us with the usual propaganda about how dangerous vitamins and alternative medicine is. 

I prefer to take control of my own health and certainly dont trust doctors when it comes to my health. The profit motive in the health industry is so great that it is difficult to seperate the truth from the fiction.

Statins is a real case in point. The whole cholesterol thing is a myth that has generated the pharmeceutical industry billions of dollars. There is no evidence whatsoever that elevated cholesterol levels lead to heart disease. Yet there is plenty of evidence on the dangerous side effects of statins.

The best thing that anyone can do is do your own research when it comes to  your health and take control of what is happening to your body.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 May 2012)

So we're all agreed then, krill oil is a very useful and effective way of lowering high tri-glyceride levels (which are associated with atherosclerosis >> heart attack and stroke).

The other (better) ways to lower blood fat levels are: exercise, stopping smoking, stopping alcohol, losing weight and eating a better diet.

Personally I don't take krill oil, but I would if I had blood fat problems.  Wouldn't hesitate.

Garlic I eat every now and then for the taste.  If I had a cold I'd consider eating a couple of raw crushed bulbs.  There's no evidence that garlic helps a cold, but you could say the same about half the drugs that doctors give out, being only fractionally more effective than placebo, and the garlic only costs a few cents.  Helps keep vamps away too.

Why does everyone on this thread have to be so goddamned polarized?  Western medicine has some absolutely fantastic drugs, and a heap of ok and useless ones.  Nature is the same - a heap of useless foods/herbs etc., and a few that stand out as being quite effective.  My aim is to take no medicines of any form.

GG - your heuristics are out of whack, m'boy.


----------



## Julia (12 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Do you know how many people are killed by prescription medications every year?
> Do you know how many people's lifestyles are adversely affected by the side effects of prescription medications?
> 
> From the US between 2000 and 2010 according to the FDA 452,000 deaths and 2.8 million serious outcomes directly related to prescription drugs.



Does that statistic include whether such adverse events were due to inappropriate prescribing or consumption, deliberate overdose/suicide attempts, lack of capacity to take into account interaction between drugs and a whole lot of other factors.
Your bland statement suggests that all prescription drugs are of themselves dangerous.

If you want to believe that, then it's fine with me.  I'd never want anyone to use anything they didn't believe would help them.



> Not sure how many people overdosed on vitamins and alternative medicines



No, you wouldn't know because no such records are kept afaik.



> I prefer to take control of my own health and certainly dont trust doctors when it comes to my health.



Fine.  Let's hope you're always in a position to do so.  I'd be very surprised, however, if you make it through to the end of your life with no medical intervention.



> The profit motive in the health industry is so great that it is difficult to seperate the truth from the fiction.



There's no profit motive in the 'natural remedies' industry????
Hardly.



> The best thing that anyone can do is do your own research when it comes to  your health and take control of what is happening to your body.



Agree insofar as that's possible.  And we can do much to help ourselves with a sensible diet and plenty of exercise.

As I've said before, I have a preference for medicines that have undergone proper testing as opposed to something which is also manufactured in a factory but quite untested.

But if you have a different view, fine with me.  I wish you good health and longevity.


----------



## johenmo (12 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Garlic I eat every now and then for the taste.  .... Helps keep vamps away too.
> 
> Why does everyone on this thread have to be so goddamned polarized?  Western medicine has some absolutely fantastic drugs, and a heap of ok and useless ones.  Nature is the same - a heap of useless foods/herbs etc., and a few that stand out as being quite effective.  My aim is to take no medicines of any form.




Sure does - have yet to meet/see any vamps.  Surely the use of garlic by so many and the avoidance of vamps is sufficient for it to be deemed a clinical trial??

And there are some drugs which are found to cause harm after the fact.  It was only last night as I took arthritis medication that despite it's side effects, the effects of not having the ability to take this (think 60 or 70 years ago) was to suffer and, for many, to quit work resulting in being poor as well.   Not everyone gets good results from a drug or alt medicine.  Mine works on 2/3 of the ppl who take it.  I also had to get close to maximum dose.  But it meant I could quit 2 other drugs which were creating health issues.

I take fish oil as opposed to krill oil - the brand I take had good trial results and (supposedly) involves some unique process.  Downside is it's in a bottle so one keeps it in the dark in the fridge to try to prevent degradation.


----------



## medicowallet (12 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Julia I am not sure why you have such a hard on re alternative medicine.
> 
> Maybe you should look a little more closely at conventional western medicine if you want to look at the real damage being caused to people's health.
> 
> ...




1. Mortality and morbidity of prescription meds = What a pathetic argument by people who have no idea about health outcomes.  Medicines improve quantity and quality of life on a massive level.

I cannot believe someone would actually argue against this, what craziness.

2. No evidence for statins.. lmao, what crazy web site have you been getting your information from..  



Seriously, you have a serious problem with any credibility with two such crazy person statements. 

Perhaps go read a journal article or twelve and make an informed statement.

MW


----------



## motorway (12 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> So we're all agreed then, krill oil is a very useful and effective way of lowering high tri-glyceride levels (which are associated with atherosclerosis >> heart attack and stroke).
> 
> The other (better) ways to lower blood fat levels are: exercise, stopping smoking, stopping alcohol, losing weight and eating a better diet.
> 
> ...




But will it make you live longer and healthier ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037257


*Is atherosclerosis a multifactorial disease or is it induced by a sequence of lipid peroxidation reactions?*

"A diet of fish was recognized [incorrectly] to be antiatherogenic. Compared with other foods, fish contains higher amounts of n-3 fatty acids. Therefore, n-3 fatty [omega-3 series] acids have been regarded and are still assumed to be antiatherogenic, in spite of the conflicting reports.

“Although saturated fats can withstand oxidation, n-3 fatty acids are PUFAs and, like all other PUFAs undergo LPO [oxidation] as shown experimentally. The deduction that fats rich in saturated fatty acids is a risk factor in atherosclerosis is therefore in disagreement with experiments demonstrating that the oxidation products of LDL are derived mainly from linoleic acid and partly from arachadonic acid [omega-6 derivative]. The fact that all PUFAs undergo LPO equally well is in disagreement with the conclusion that n-3 fatty acids are protective.”

*Is lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated acids the only source of free radicals that induce aging and age-related diseases?*


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230283


"Dr. Gerhard Spiteller attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as a postdoctoral fellow in 1960-1961. He is the Chairholder of Biochemistry, Institute of Organic Chemistry at the University of Bayreuth. He discovered - urofuranoic acids and has published over 100 scientific papers. Since 1986 Dr. Spiteller has investigated fatty acids (EFAs) and their degradation-products, specifically, the influence of these substances in the - physiology of mammals and plants."

==> This researchers work is eye opening esp on the dangers of Polyunsaturated oils. 




> Most of the studies showing fish oil benefits are short-term, lasting less than one year
> The only fish oil study lasting more than four years showed an increase in heart disease and sudden death
> Fish oil is highly unstable and vulnerable to oxidative damage







> “Consumption of oxidized PUFA-cholesterol esters seems to be responsible for the initial damage to endothelia cells.  “[C]holesterol is transported to cells in esterified form by low-density lipoprotein (LDL). LDL is recognized by an endothelial cell receptor and induced into the cell by endocytosis. There, the esters are cleaved [removed]. The resulting free cholesterol is transferred to cell walls. The overall process is strictly regulated.
> 
> 
> “In atherosclerotic patients LDL is altered by oxidation. This altered LDL is taken up in unlimited amounts by microphages. Dead microphages filled with cholesterol esters are finally deposited in arteries. The fact that LDL is rendered toxic by oxidation raises the question, which constituents of LDL are prone to oxidation?....”
> “Thus, atherosclerosis seems to be a multi-step sequence of LPO reactions, but not a multi-factorial disease







Motorway


----------



## Intrinsic Value (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Does that statistic include whether such adverse events were due to inappropriate prescribing or consumption, deliberate overdose/suicide attempts, lack of capacity to take into account interaction between drugs and a whole lot of other factors.
> Your bland statement suggests that all prescription drugs are of themselves dangerous.
> 
> If you want to believe that, then it's fine with me.  I'd never want anyone to use anything they didn't believe would help them.
> ...




I think you missed the point i was trying to make. That is that western medicine and particularly modern pharmeceutical drugs need to be taken with great care and if you have to take any drugs dont rely on doctors for your info go and do you own research and listen to you own body. There can be great risks with many drugs as evidenced by the number of deaths and debilitating side effects of many of them.

Of course I am not saying that all drugs are bad and that we should never use them. Without antibiotics we would still be in the dark ages and of course there are other drugs that are beneficial as well.

And yes many vitamin and alternative health products are garbage and offer no real health benefits but in the vast majority of cases taking these products will do you no physical harm although you will out of pocket.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (13 May 2012)

Yes there is no compelling evidence for taking any statins whatsoever and there is plenty of scientific evidence to back this up if you care to do some research.

Yes many people benefit from prescription drugs no doubt but far too many die or suffer serious side effects from the use of such drugs.

Again my main point is do your own research it is your body.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Yes there is no compelling evidence for taking any statins whatsoever and there is plenty of scientific evidence to back this up if you care to do some research.
> 
> Yes many people benefit from prescription drugs no doubt but far too many die or suffer serious side effects from the use of such drugs.
> 
> Again my main point is do your own research it is your body.




I have read that smoking cigars,in particular Cohibas is good for one's health.

I myself would not recognise a statin if I fell over it, but a Cohiba, is a good smoke, and leaves me with a sense of eternity, second only to congress. I do hope congress is still allowed?

Many alternative medical advocates I have encountered have a mean and hungry look by the way.

gg


----------



## medicowallet (13 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Yes there is no compelling evidence for taking any statins whatsoever and there is plenty of scientific evidence to back this up if you care to do some research.
> 
> Yes many people benefit from prescription drugs no doubt but far too many die or suffer serious side effects from the use of such drugs.
> 
> Again my main point is do your own research it is your body.




Yes, and fluoride melts your brain.

Where is this evidence that Statins do nothing?   

Because there is plenty of evidence that statins are effective.


MW


----------



## hja (13 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have read that smoking cigars,in particular Cohibas is good for one's health.




I don't know how that makes one toxic cocktail better than the toxins from a cheaper brand but wait til you start inhaling the fumes!

At least that's what my last solderer friend said.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> I think you missed the point i was trying to make.



With respect, I don't think you made a valid point.  You stated that X number of deaths occurred and X adverse outcomes occurred in the US from prescription drugs.

That's a meaningless statistic unless you explain also:
(a)  The source and how the research was carried out
(b)  The comparative number of positive outcomes from the use of prescription drugs, 
       thus providing a percentage of adverse outcomes
(c)   As I've already referred to in earlier post, the details of the reasons for the 
       adverse outcomes, e.g. deliberate overdose, confusion about dosages, 
       interaction with other substances including 'alternative medicines' etc.

I recall listening to a naturopath (supposedly well qualified, whatever that means) answer a question from a patient who was on potassium-sparing diuretics for her hypertension.  She said "I've heard potassium is good for XXXXX.  Should I take it and if so how much?"

The answer from the learned naturopath was that the patient would absolutely benefit from exogenous potassium and no, it could do no harm, and it didn't matter how much she took.

In fact the combination of a potassium-sparing diuretic and additional potassium could cause hyperkalaemia and cardiac arrest.



> That is that western medicine and particularly modern pharmeceutical drugs need to be taken with great care and if you have to take any drugs dont rely on doctors for your info go and do you own research



Where do you suggest people access this reliable research?



> And yes many vitamin and alternative health products are garbage and offer no real health benefits but in the vast majority of cases taking these products will do you no physical harm although you will out of pocket.



I have quoted just a single example above of why this is simply not so in some cases.

But hey, if you want to chomp on tablets that are manufactured in a factory somewhere and are not tested for efficacy before they are aggressively marketed in the retail arena, go for it.  There will probably be a competent doctor available in the established medical system to pick up the pieces if you come to grief.


----------



## motorway (13 May 2012)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817111825.htm


Pharmaceuticals: A Market for Producing 'Lemons' and Serious Harm, Analysis Finds
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2010) ”” The pharmaceutical industry is a "market for lemons," a market in which the seller knows much more than the buyer about the product and can profit from selling products less effective and less safe than consumers are led to believe, according to an analysis that will be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.


Motorway

Human nature is a naturally vested interest !


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> ...But hey, if you want to chomp on tablets that are manufactured in a factory somewhere and are not tested for efficacy before they are aggressively marketed in the retail arena, go for it.  There will probably be a competent doctor available in the established medical system to pick up the pieces if you come to grief.




And yet not a peep from alternative medicine antagonists about the potential and serious side effects of some medications?  Please tell me which NUTRITIONAL supplement can beat antipsychotics for side effects? 

No wonder people reach for alternative medicines - below is one of the lists of side effects, warnings and precautions for antipsychotic medications:

*Warnings and precautions*

Children, the elderly, persons with liver and/or kidney disease and those taking medications that raise antipsychotic blood levels may need lower dosages and may be more susceptible to adverse effects at standard dosages.

The safety of antipsychotics during pregnancy or breastfeeding is not well studied. Most experts believe that use of high-potency typical antipsychotics such as haloperidol or fluphenazine (which have not been linked with specific congenital abnormalities) is warranted in pregnant women with moderate to severe psychotic symptoms. Low-potency typical antipsychotics have been associated with a 20 percent to 30 percent increase in risk of congenital abnormalities overall. The safety of atypical antipsychotics during pregnancy and breast-feeding is not yet known.

Because antipsychotics (particularly clozapine) may induce seizures, persons with epilepsy should use antipsychotics only while taking anti-epileptic drugs under supervision of a neurologist.

People with Parkinson’s disease are highly susceptible to muscular side effects of antipsychotics (such as stiffness, spasm or tremor). Although atypical antipsychotics are less likely to cause those adverse effects in general, they may still produce them in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Olanzapine, clozapine and quetiapine are considered less likely than risperidone to cause muscular side effects in persons with Parkinson’s disease

Although all medications have potential to suppress bone marrow, clozapine has a high risk of doing so. Therefore, persons taking clozapine require frequent blood cell counts. Also, persons taking other medications that may suppress bone marrow (such as carbamazepine) should avoid treatment with clozapine. 

Persons taking medications that can increase antipsychotic blood levels should use antipsychotic medications cautiously to reduce risk of antipsychotic adverse effects.

*Adverse effects of antipsychotics*

Although all antipsychotics have been reported to induce similar adverse effects, their likelihood of inducing particular adverse effects differ. Common adverse effects and the drugs likely to cause them are:

*Sedation*—Among typical antipsychotics, sleepiness or fatigue is more likely to occur in persons taking “low potency” antipsychotics (so-called because higher doses are needed for antipsychotic effects). For example, the low-potency antipsychotics Thorazine ® and Mellaril ® are more likely to cause sleepiness and fatigue than are high-potency drugs such as Prolixin ®, Stelazine ®, Navane ® and Haldol ®.

Persons taking other medications that cause sedation (such as Tegretol ®, Depakote ®, Klonopin ® and other benzodiazepines, Remeron ®, trazodone) are at greater risk of developing sedation while taking antipsychotics.

*Anticholinergic side effects* (dry mouth, dilated pupils, rapid heart rate, constipation, difficulty urinating)—Among typical antipsychotics, low-potency drugs are more likely to cause anticholinergic side effects than high-potency drugs.

Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ® and Seroquel ® are more likely to cause anticholinergic side effects than Risperdal ®. Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ® and Seroquel ® generally cause less severe anticholinergic effects than do low-potency typical antipsychotics.

Persons who are dehydrated and persons taking other medications with anticholinergic side effects (such as Cogentin ® or Artane ®) are at greater risk for developing anticholinergic side effects while taking antipsychotics.

*Postural hypotension* (lightheadedness upon sitting up or standing)—As with sedation and anticholinergic side effects, postural hypotension is more likely to occur with low- rather than higher- potency drugs. Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, Seroquel ® and Geodon ® are more likely to cause postural hypotension than Risperdal ® or Abilify ®. Persons who have low blood pressure and persons who are dehydrated are at greater risk for postural hypotension while taking antipsychotics.

*Weight gain* can occur with all antipsychotic drugs, but appears most likely with low potency typical antipsychotics. Among the newer atypical antipsychotics, Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, and, to some degree, Risperdal ® appear most likely to cause weight gain. This weight gain is sometimes associated with high blood sugar and fat levels. Seroquel ®, Geodon ® and Abilify ® appear less likely to cause weight gain. Persons who are obese and those who are taking other drugs that cause weight gain (such as lithium or Depakote ®) are at greater risk for gaining weight during treatment with antipsychotics.

*Metabolic syndrome*—A growing concern is the increased prevalence of diabetes and high cholesterol, often accompanying weight gain, in people taking atypical antipsychotics. This syndrome deserves serious attention due to the known long-term health effects. All persons taking atypical antipsychotic medication should be screened for diabetes and high cholesterol prior to starting these medications and at least every six months as long as they are taking these medications. When metabolic syndrome occurs, its treatment should be shared between psychiatrist and primary care physician in order to obtain the best effect of medications for schizophrenia while minimizing long-term health risks.

*Extrapyramidal adverse effects*

This side effect category comprises dystonia (sudden severe muscle stiffness, often of the eyes, jaw or neck), generalized muscle stiffness, bradykinesia (slowed movements), tremor, “mask facies” (blank facial expression) and akathisia (an unpleasant, restless feeling particularly in the legs, alleviated by movement).

Extrapyramidal adverse effects are more likely to occur in persons taking high-potency typical antipsychotics such as Haldol ®, Prolixin ®, Navane ®, Trilafon ® and Stelazine ®. They are less likely to occur in persons taking low-potency drugs such as Mellaril ®, Serentil ® or Thorazine ®, and least likely to occur in persons taking the atypical antipsychotics Clozaril ®, Zyprexa ®, Risperdal ®, Seroquel ®, Geodon ® and Abilify ®. However, when Risperdal is used at doses higher than 6 mg. per day, extrapyramidal adverse effects are more common. 

*Less common and rare adverse effects:*

*Seizures*—Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may increase the likelihood of seizures in persons with epilepsy, in persons taking high antipsychotic dosages and in persons taking antipsychotics with other drugs that may increase antipsychotic blood levels. Clozaril ® may be more likely to induce seizures than other antipsychotics.

*Allergic reactions*—Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may cause allergic symptoms such as rash, hives, swelling and/or difficulty breathing. Allergic symptoms usually occur within the first three months and may occur at low as well as higher dosages.

*Sensitivity to sunlight*—Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may increase sensitivity to sunlight and cause sunburn. Increased sun sensitivity can occur at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Liver toxicity*—Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may cause liver problems, which may manifest as yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes (jaundice) or as abnormally high levels of liver enzymes in the blood. Liver problems can appear at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Bone marrow toxicity*—Clozapine ® has the highest risk of bone marrow toxicity, which manifests as an abnormally low white blood cell count during mandatory blood cell monitoring. Persons who have bone marrow toxicity may develop high fever and sore throat due to inability to fight off infection. Both low and high dosages can cause bone marrow toxicity, which is most likely to occur within the first 18 months of treatment.

*Priapism* (sustained, painful erection or engorgement of the clitoris)—Low potency antipsychotics may be more likely to cause this rare adverse effect. Some cases have been reported with atypical antipsychotics.

*Heart rhythm abnormalities*—Although clinically insignificant changes in EKG may occur in persons taking any antipsychotic drug, serious heart rhythm abnormalities are rare. Such abnormalities may be more common in persons taking thioridazine (Mellaril ®) and show up as sudden lightheadedness, shortness of breath and/or chest pain.

*Confusion and hallucinations*—This adverse effect (sometimes called central anticholinergic syndrome) is more likely to occur in persons taking very high doses of low potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when they are prescribed with Cogentin ® or Artane ®.

continued...


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

2nd post - this list of side effects wouldn't fit into one post...

*Hyperprolactinemia*””This refers to high levels of the hormone prolactin, whose secretion by the pituitary is increased by many antipsychotic drugs. High prolactin levels may be associated with low sex drive, sexual dysfunction, missed or irregular menstrual periods, and, over a long term, loss of bone density. All typical antipsychotics cause significant increases in plasma prolactin levels, with high potency drugs more likely to do so. With the exception of Risperdal ®, which has been reported to cause large increases in plasma prolactin in some people, atypical antipsychotics are less likely to increase prolactin levels.


*Less common and rare adverse effects:*

*Seizures*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may increase the likelihood of seizures in persons with epilepsy, in persons taking high antipsychotic dosages and in persons taking antipsychotics with other drugs that may increase antipsychotic blood levels. Clozaril ® may be more likely to induce seizures than other antipsychotics.

*Allergic reactions*””Both typical and atypical antipsychotics may cause allergic symptoms such as rash, hives, swelling and/or difficulty breathing. Allergic symptoms usually occur within the first three months and may occur at low as well as higher dosages.

*Sensitivity to sunlight*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may increase sensitivity to sunlight and cause sunburn. Increased sun sensitivity can occur at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Liver toxicity*””Both atypical and typical antipsychotics may cause liver problems, which may manifest as yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes (jaundice) or as abnormally high levels of liver enzymes in the blood. Liver problems can appear at lower as well as higher dosages.

*Bone marrow toxicity*””Clozapine ® has the highest risk of bone marrow toxicity, which manifests as an abnormally low white blood cell count during mandatory blood cell monitoring. Persons who have bone marrow toxicity may develop high fever and sore throat due to inability to fight off infection. Both low and high dosages can cause bone marrow toxicity, which is most likely to occur within the first 18 months of treatment.

*Priapism* (sustained, painful erection or engorgement of the clitoris)””Low potency antipsychotics may be more likely to cause this rare adverse effect. Some cases have been reported with atypical antipsychotics.

*Heart rhythm abnormalities*””Although clinically insignificant changes in EKG may occur in persons taking any antipsychotic drug, serious heart rhythm abnormalities are rare. Such abnormalities may be more common in persons taking thioridazine (Mellaril ®) and show up as sudden lightheadedness, shortness of breath and/or chest pain.

*Confusion and hallucinations*””This adverse effect (sometimes called central anticholinergic syndrome) is more likely to occur in persons taking very high doses of low potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when they are prescribed with Cogentin ® or Artane ®.

*Hyperprolactinemia*””This refers to high levels of the hormone prolactin, whose secretion by the pituitary is increased by many antipsychotic drugs. High prolactin levels may be associated with low sex drive, sexual dysfunction, missed or irregular menstrual periods, and, over a long term, loss of bone density. All typical antipsychotics cause significant increases in plasma prolactin levels, with high potency drugs more likely to do so. With the exception of Risperdal ®, which has been reported to cause large increases in plasma prolactin in some people, atypical antipsychotics are less likely to increase prolactin levels.

*Less common or rare extrapyramidal adverse effects*

These adverse effects include neuroleptic malignant syndrome (a potentially life-threatening occurrence characterized by fever, abnormal movements, changes in heart rate and/or blood pressure, changes in mental status and abnormal blood chemistry values), and tardive motor syndromes during long-term treatment. Tardive motor syndromes include tardive dyskinesia (involuntary movements, usually of the tongue, lips and/or jaw), tardive dystonia (muscle spasms), tardive akathisia (restlessness) and tardive tics (sudden twitches or movements).

Risks of both *neuroleptic malignant syndrome* and *tardive motor syndromes* are higher in persons taking higher dosages. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is more likely to occur in younger persons (particularly men) taking high-potency typical antipsychotics, particularly when prescribed with lithium. Low blood iron levels also may increase risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Nevertheless, neuroleptic malignant syndrome also has been reported in persons taking low-potency typical antipsychotics and in persons taking atypical antipsychotics.

Tardive motor syndromes are thought to be much more likely to occur in persons taking typical antipsychotics, although they have been reported in persons taking atypical antipsychotics. Women and elderly persons are at greater risk for tardive motor syndromes.

https://www.achievesolutions.net/achievesolutions/en/Content.do?contentId=4100


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

Popping pills like these antipsychotics seems far more dangerous than taking a nutritional supplement which have been around for many, many years and yet very few side effects seem to be reported.

I am not against pharma medications entirely, however, I think the risks of antipsychotics outweigh any potential benefits except in extreme cases.  In my daughter's case, her GP really didn't know how to help her get off Seroquel and just wanted her to taper.  When she got to a stage where the side effects were too severe to continue tapering, I searched the internet and, thankfully, he agreed with my findings and she came off it reasonably well.  Stress still brings a return of withdrawal symptoms with the accompanying nausea, weakness, dizziness, headache, etc, etc - and that's now three months later.

It seems this medication has done nothing to help her recover from depression.  I asked the GP that very question, and he admitted it was pretty much masking it.  Whoopee - four years of my life trying to help her get better when Seroquel had her so badly tranquilised she was not able to function very well.

While there is no guarantee of quality with nutritional supplements, the businesses supplying them have been around for a long time and would obviously not want to ruin their businesses because of poor quality.

IMO, there is just as much risk with SOME pharma drugs as there is with nutritional supplements.  However, the supplements don't have the massive list of side effects.

It all comes down does the risk outweigh the potential benefits for both types of treatments.  Years ago, nutrition seemed to be more a part of medicine and is how it should be, imo.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 May 2012)

What would those with more knowledge than me suggest for an alternative treatment for parasites (just out of interest, as we have probably picked some up here in South America)?


----------



## roxane (14 May 2012)

There is nothing wrong with alt. medicine. The problem is with those who give a pretty bad reputation to it, and there are a lot of them. Unfortunately this industry is not regulated, so basically anybody who does a two weeks course can become some sort of therapist.

Here is my experience with a thermal imaging clinic. 
http://thermalimaging.webs.com/

I'm not selling anything, this link is not a spam


----------



## Intrinsic Value (14 May 2012)

Julia said:


> With respect, I don't think you made a valid point.  You stated that X number of deaths occurred and X adverse outcomes occurred in the US from prescription drugs.
> 
> That's a meaningless statistic unless you explain also:
> (a)  The source and how the research was carried out
> ...




Look the facts are very clear. I am not sure why you want to argue the point about deaths and serious side effects caused by pharmaceutical drugs vs problems caused by vitamin and natural health supplements. There is no contest there.

As to where people may do their research may i humbly suggest the internet?

If you want to bury your head in the sand and paint everything black and white ie prescription drugs= good  and vitamins and other health supplements =bad that is your perogative but many people out there have benefitted from alternative therapies and vitamin supplementation and in fact many doctors these days are offering complementary therapies along with conventional treatments.


----------



## medicowallet (14 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Look the facts are very clear. I am not sure why you want to argue the point about deaths and serious side effects caused by pharmaceutical drugs vs problems caused by vitamin and natural health supplements. There is no contest there.
> 
> As to where people may do their research may i humbly suggest the internet?
> 
> If you want to bury your head in the sand and paint everything black and white ie prescription drugs= good  and vitamins and other health supplements =bad that is your perogative but many people out there have benefitted from alternative therapies and vitamin supplementation and in fact many doctors these days are offering complementary therapies along with conventional treatments.




Your naive view fails to appreciate the fact that vitamins do not in reality TREAT much at all. A few conditions yes, but in reality.

Pharmaceutical medicines (derived from natural sources or otherwise) show effectiveness against many, and varied conditions of varying severity.

So, as the other postes states that a side effect of hyperprolactinemia is problematic wrt an antipsychotic (and remember that those precious side effects do not necessarily show in all people) have to be weighed up against their effectiveness for treating some truly horrible mental health conditions and improving quality and quantity of life significantly for a massive population.

So, please, while I understand that you are not privy to what happens in the real world of medicine and health, I do not understand how you profess to understand things with your limited exposure to such content.

Your points are flawed and in great error, so please, do some homework, or volunteer in mental health for a week and see what you think.

MW


----------



## medicowallet (14 May 2012)

sails said:


> And yet not a peep from alternative medicine antagonists about the potential and serious side effects of some medications?  Please tell me which NUTRITIONAL supplement can beat antipsychotics for side effects?




How about ONE natural medicine that is effective vs schizophrenia..

Oh and I'll take a very quick stab

1. Arsenic
2. Cadmium
3. Copper
4. Iron
5. Iodine
6. Mercury

Google them. I think you will find them quite toxic.

BUT

I'll tell you what is even more dangerous
That is incompetent people peddling dubious "treatments" not backed by evidence based medicines.

Believe me, I am yet to meet a naturopath who does not regularly go outside reality.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (14 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> Your naive view fails to appreciate the fact that vitamins do not in reality TREAT much at all. A few conditions yes, but in reality.
> 
> Pharmaceutical medicines (derived from natural sources or otherwise) show effectiveness against many, and varied conditions of varying severity.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the patronising response.

Again I have never stated that pharmaceutical drugs are all bad and should not be used and have no benefits.

What I have been saying and you seem not to be comprehending is that pharmaceutical drugs are not all good and that many people have in fact died and many have suffered serious health issues as a result of taking these drugs. So before you rush willy nilly in to taking any pharmaceutical drugs make sure you do you own research. Do not rely on others be it doctors or anyone else in the medical community because in the end it is your body.

Secondly many people have beneffited from alternative therapies, nutrional supplements etc but of course the same advice goes here too. Do you own research and take control of your own health.


----------



## medicowallet (14 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Thanks for the patronising response.
> 
> Again I have never stated that pharmaceutical drugs are all bad and should not be used and have no benefits.
> 
> ...




I think you flatter yourself, as it was not patronising.

I don't think that anyone says that drugs are safe, and I don't think anyone really believes that,

but to say that drugs should be used with extreme caution is silly, as the internet, heck even monographs, do not understand drugs in a clinical context, hence, I really do not think it is at all relevant that amiodarone affects thyroid function a little bit, if it saves someone from an arrythmia, but if you google that and refuse to consider it as a drug then that is just plain crazy.

So listing facts that drugs have side effects and that some are serious (and even result in the extremely rare fatality) and claiming that natural therapies are "safer" is misleading, unless you have a clear understanding of clinical context, and that is where you fail in any way to be taken seriously with your ill informed view.

MW


----------



## sails (14 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> How about ONE natural medicine that is effective vs schizophrenia..
> 
> Oh and I'll take a very quick stab
> 
> ...




Large doses of Vitamin B3 have been effective according to this and far milder than some of the toxic substances you list above: The Proper Treatment of Schizophrenia
Requires Optimal Daily Doses of Vitamin B3

And it sounds far more promising that simply tranquilising patients with these very strong antipsychotics.  Just like any medication, it may not suit everyone, but surely nutritional medicine should get some recognition?  When I was in nursing training, nutrition was an important part of my course.  Why is it now that doctors simply print up a script and hardly a thought given to nutritional levels?

What could be more dangereous than the two posts full of side effects (with some dangereous and permanent)?  Just because a pharma med has been tested doesn't mean it is less dangereous than something like B3 which has been around much longer than the likes of Seroquel and yet you won't find blog after blog and thread after thread of people struggling with B3 like you do with Seroquel.

Google "seroquel withdrawal" and "seroquel side effects" and you will find what is actually happening to real people who are simply out there desperately trying to find support from other people as they go through hell.


----------



## motorway (14 May 2012)

Sunlight and Fresh air are powerful medicines and since the dawn of history were known to be.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/09/07/3005303.htm

"Professor John McGrath from the Queensland Brain Institute says there has been suggestions for some time that there may be a link between sunlight, vitamin D and brain development.

He says it is increasingly clear children with low vitamin D levels are more likely to develop schizophrenia.

"For the babies who had very low vitamin D, their risk was about twice as high as those babies who had optimal vitamin D," says McGrath.

"But the amazing thing was that the study that was based in Denmark, where low vitamin D is quite common, we found that if vitamin D is linked to schizophrenia our statistics suggest that it could explain about 40% of all schizophrenias.

"That's a much bigger effect than we're used to seeing in schizophrenia research."

http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au/professor-john-mcgrath-epidemiology-and-developmental-neurobiology

 A review of some of the  numerous ways vitamin D is involved in brain development and function, including:

 Synaptic development
 Nerve migration and growth
 Neurotransmission, both excitatory and inhibitory
 Preventing excessive cell proliferation
 Orchestrating signaling pathways in the brain
 Cell differentiation
 Nerve growth factor expression
 Regulation of inflammatory cytokines
 Neurotransmitter synthesis
 Intra-neuronal calcium signaling
 Anti-oxidant activity
 Control of the expression of genes involved in brain structure and metabolism
 Regulation of glutathione, the master antioxidant and heavy metal remover
 Protection from glutamate toxicity

Also quite some research looking at Vitamin D and the Statin connection.

Quite a lot of research on Vitamin D all around given the understanding that==>

Vitamin D & Gene Expression
In recent years a much deeper understanding of the role of D has begun to emerge.  It is now recognized that vitamin is a hormone that acts via the autocrine system.  The autocrine pathway is a mode of hormone action in which a hormone binds to receptors on, and affects the function of, the cell that actually produces it.  In other words, a cell produces a hormone that, in turn, turns around and exerts its effect back on the cell.

This differs from the endocrine pathway, in which a hormone is produced by one cell, but the hormone travels through the blood to exert its effect on other cells.  Thyroid hormone is an example of an endocrine pathway, in which the thyroid gland produces thyroid hormone, but the hormone is secreted into the blood to travel to other tissues to exert its effects.

As an autocrine hormone, it turns out the calcitriol, the active form of D, is a key link in the signaling mechanism in cells that matches a stimulus reaching the cell with the proper cellular response to that stimulus.  More specifically, a signal stimulates a cell to perform some function, such as requiring that cell to manufacture one or more proteins to respond to the signal.  Many tissues possess proteins, enzymes, & signaling molecules that exist only in virtual form - encoded in nuclear DNA.  These molecules are synthesized only on signaled demand-- the DNA “library” opens up, the required gene “blueprints” are found, and the molecules are created.

Vitamin D is the metabolic “key” that unlocks the DNA “library” of genes, thereby allowing the required proteins and molecules to be synthesized. Vitamin D is directly involved in the expression of  2000 such genes!
Therefore, without adequate D, there is an impaired ability of cells to respond adequately to pathologic and physiologic signals.

Examples of Vitamin D Autocrine Actions

•Breast Tissue-- D is needed to mount an adequate tissue response to cyclic changes in progesterone and estrogen levels, thereby helping to protect against breast cancer.
•Immune System--  Macrophages, the main bacteria-fighting white blood cells, require D to synthesize the proteins that kill bacteria and fight infection.
•Skin & Epithelial Structures-- D is needed for the production of proteins that regulate cell differentiation, cell growth, & routine programmed death of aging and damaged cells. 
Vitamin D receptors have also been found in the brain, muscle, prostate, and colon. 



> A number of proteins exist whose entire purpose in life is to go along the genome, like a railroad car, detecting small genetic variations in one set of genes, and fix them, sometimes using the other set of genes as a template for normal.
> 
> And guess who is in charge of these little locomotives? Guess who protects your genome from these genetic variations, guess who is “The Defender of the Genome”? You guessed it; it’s just another one of vitamin D’s repair and maintenance functions.





etc

Agree though the Vitamin D is a special case among supplements

The best diet in the world can still mean one can be woefully deficient.

MW , How many Doctors make sure there is no D deficiency in their patients before prescribing  significant drug interventions ?

My experience NONE. But when the patients were prompted to ask the Doctor. The common response was .. what a good idea ( though why did they not think about it  then ? is my response to that !)

In all these examples .. measurable improvement resulted in the conditions being treated. When the  D deficiencies were corrected. *Especially with the Elderly.*



Motorway


----------



## motorway (15 May 2012)

*Bearing the Risk of Prescription Drugs*



Motorway


----------



## medicowallet (15 May 2012)

sails said:


> Large doses of Vitamin B3 have been effective according to this and far milder than some of the toxic substances you list above: The Proper Treatment of Schizophrenia
> Requires Optimal Daily Doses of Vitamin B3
> 
> And it sounds far more promising that simply tranquilising patients with these very strong antipsychotics.  Just like any medication, it may not suit everyone, but surely nutritional medicine should get some recognition?  When I was in nursing training, nutrition was an important part of my course.  Why is it now that doctors simply print up a script and hardly a thought given to nutritional levels?
> ...




1. Sorry, but that article is laughable.  Show me some real study, double blind placebo, peer reviewed.  Or a systematic review, not just one, probably flawed study with no methodology etc, and something quite recent too.

2.Google seroquel withdrawal lol, I am much closer to seroquel use than you give me credit for, I have observed seroquel withdrawal and psychosis in most forms.

3. What is more dangerous is a schizophrenic person, who qualifies for seroquel and decides to self medicate with B3 due to the pathetic article you listed.


Evidence based medicine, relies on... well... evidence.

MW


----------



## sails (15 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> 1. Sorry, but that article is laughable.  Show me some real study, double blind placebo, peer reviewed.  Or a systematic review, not just one, probably flawed study with no methodology etc, and something quite recent too.
> 
> 2.Google seroquel withdrawal lol, I am much closer to seroquel use than you give me credit for, I have observed seroquel withdrawal and psychosis in most forms.
> 
> ...




Ahh, but have you really been on the coal face?  Have you been through numerous suicide watches?  Have you had to sleep with two phones within handy reach because life has become too hard and the brain seemingly so scrambled that the patient can no longer think rationally?

Have you ever had to let yourself into a family member's home not knowing if they are dead or alive because they are not answering the phone?  

Interestingly, since being off seroquel now for four months, these episodes seem to have disappeared.  While my daughter is still struggling to regain her health and brain function, she is more animated and more able to think rationally.

However, if you have not seen or experienced this, I am sorry, but you know very little about the real difficulties of seroquel, imo and in my experience.  Give me the relative safety of nutritional medicine any day over  prescriptions whose side effects resemble nothing short of poison, imo.

Part of the Black box warning for seroquel:



> Even though Seroquel is not classified as an antidepressant, the FDA has required the drug to carry the special antidepressant and <b>suicide warning</b>, since it is used to treat bipolar depression. Antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior in people taking it (see Depression and Suicide).




And it's not advised for the elderly.  How many elderly are plonked on this stuff for sleep?

http://bipolar-disorder.emedtv.com/seroquel/seroquel-warnings-and-precautions.html
http://www1.astrazeneca-us.com/pi/seroquelxr.pdf


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2012)

motorway said:


> Sunlight and Fresh air are powerful medicines and since the dawn of history were known to be.
> 
> 
> Agree though the Vitamin D is a special case among supplements
> ...




Sorry mate, can you elaborate.

What is your definition of the best diet in the world?

If it is the best diet how can it be deficient in a vitamin?

gg


----------



## Julia (15 May 2012)

sails said:


> Ahh, but have you really been on the coal face?  Have you been through numerous suicide watches?  Have you had to sleep with two phones within handy reach because life has become too hard and the brain seemingly so scrambled that the patient can no longer think rationally?



As a doctor, I think we can safely assume Medicowallet knows something of psychosis and its treatment.



> Give me the relative safety of nutritional medicine any day over  prescriptions whose side effects resemble nothing short of poison, imo.



That is to assume that 'nutritional medicine' is even remotely as effective as antipsychotic drugs to treat psychotic illness, something which is doubtful at best.



> And it's not advised for the elderly.  How many elderly are plonked on this stuff for sleep?



The issue of inappropriate prescribing, as demonstrated in the use of Seroquel for your daughter, is a completely separate issue from the effectiveness of various compounds for treating acute and chronic psychosis.

By all means, take issue with inappropriate prescribing.
But please do not underestimate the hideous terror of people suffering a psychotic illness.


----------



## sails (15 May 2012)

Julia said:


> ...By all means, take issue with inappropriate prescribing.
> But please do not underestimate the hideous terror of people suffering a psychotic illness.




Julia, those suffering from the  hideous terror of psychotic illness need treatment, not just tranquilising.  I have enormous empathy with those so inflicted and find it somewhat insulting that you would indicate otherwise.  I am frequently told by professionals that I have gone well above and beyond the call of duty - and it's because I happen to care that my daughter is one of those who has been afflicted.

And when I asked my daughter's doctor if seroquel had actually done anything to help improve her depression in the four years she had been on it, he shook his head.

I said, "so it's pretty much just tranquilised her?" - he nodded.  Sad really.

I have always said there are some who do need tranquilising with these powerful antipsychotics - those with dangerous manic episodes would probably be in that category, imo,  but for this to be prescribed without an authority seems bizarre, imo.

When it comes to doctors, who teaches them how to prescribe?  Isn't it the pharma company's reps?  Isn't it through their prescribing information?  Isn't it possible there is some conflict of interest as the pharma company will want as much in sales as possible?

I believe AstraZenaca pulls in billions per year in sales from seroquel alone.  Doesn't that indicate that there just might be an overprescribing problem world wide?

However, we will probably need to agree to disagree.


----------



## motorway (15 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry mate, can you elaborate.
> 
> What is your definition of the best diet in the world?
> 
> ...




Foods have in general very low levels of vitamin D

Esp modern farmed foods ( feedlot pigs , farmed fish , caged eggs )

Even foods as natural can be have relatively low levels.

Some modern foods even block absorption of Vitamin D.

We have evolved the ability to make vitamin D from the UVB ( not UVA which breaks down and dergrades Vitamin D ) rays of the SUN. In Our Skin,  That is how nature would work. But we are inside buildings for work and in many cases play. We are behind glass even when we think we are outside and we wear clothes and sunscreens.

We also have migrated around the world to northern and southern locations
where less of the vitamin D rays of the sun reach the Earth especially in winters.

And unlike the Inuit for example.. We do not feast on wild seafood ( Salmon Seals etc and blubber etc ( one of the few good sources in food --to the extent that would be necessary )

A good diet can provide little vitamin D compared to when you consider that naked at noon with the SUN overhead you can make 20,000 iu very quickly ( quicker than the time needed to start going pink ).


Best Diet in the World ?

That will always be controversial and can degrade in to argument.

I try to have the best diet in the world as far as I understand the Science, that gives me pleasure and has measurable beneficial effect on many measurable parameters.

Core aspects are 

Wild Seafood ( of all types )
pasture fed or wild meats ( of all types )
Free Range Eggs
Wide range of non starchy vegetables
Fats and oils.

A few other things.

Working for Me 

Motorway


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

Julia said:


> As a doctor, I think we can safely assume Medicowallet knows something of psychosis and its treatment.




Neither do I doubt his knowledge of psychosis and its treatment.  However, I'm not sure that there are too many doctors prescribing this type of medication have any real idea of how toxic it can be to many people.  My daughter's doctor has pretty much played down the severity of her withdrawal symptoms with the exception of difficulty with sleep. 

And yet, her symptoms are consistent with hundreds, if not thousands, of people world wide who use blogs and forums much like we do here.  I have corresponded with some who have had so many psycho medications and have also found they are absolutely no better when the time comes to get off them.




> That is to assume that 'nutritional medicine' is even remotely as effective as antipsychotic drugs to treat psychotic illness, something which is doubtful at best.





There are many instances to be found where supplements have been just as effective and without the severe side effects often found with prescription ADs.  Why give an SSRI when boosting nutritional serotonin works just as well, doesn't have the terrible physical side effects of "getting used to it" in the first place and doesn't give physical side effects of missing a day?  It doesn't help everyone but there are those who testify of the help it gives them and allows them to function more normally.

I wonder if MW has ever actually taken seroquel for a few weeks  if he is so good at dishing it out.  He might learn what many  his patients are in for when the time comes to get off it.

Nutritional supplements have been around for many years and there are also many who confirm their effectiveness.  It seems a bit too generalised to simply write it all off as "doubtful at best".


----------



## Julia (16 May 2012)

sails said:


> Julia, those suffering from the  hideous terror of psychotic illness need treatment, not just tranquilising.  I have enormous empathy with those so inflicted and find it somewhat insulting that you would indicate otherwise.  I am frequently told by professionals that I have gone well above and beyond the call of duty - and it's because I happen to care that my daughter is one of those who has been afflicted.
> 
> And when I asked my daughter's doctor if seroquel had actually done anything to help improve her depression in the four years she had been on it, he shook his head.
> 
> I said, "so it's pretty much just tranquilised her?" - he nodded.  Sad really.



Given that this doctor was the one who so inappropriately prescribed the drug for your daughter, I'm surprised that you should still regard his opinion about this class of drugs as that of an informed prescriber.

To suggest that antipsychotic medication only 'tranquillises' rather than 'treats' psychosis is simplistic and simply wrong.  It has been previously suggested that the use of potent antipsychotic medication should be restricted to those properly qualified to understand its benefits v risks.  Imo most GPs are not thus qualified.  This has been amply demonstrated in your daughter's case.




> I have always said there are some who do need tranquilising with these powerful antipsychotics - those with dangerous manic episodes would probably be in that category, imo,  but for this to be prescribed without an authority seems bizarre, imo.



Exactly.



> When it comes to doctors, who teaches them how to prescribe?  Isn't it the pharma company's reps?  Isn't it through their prescribing information?  Isn't it possible there is some conflict of interest as the pharma company will want as much in sales as possible?



Thousands of doctors do not see pharmaceutical reps.  MW previously mentioned the various medical journals.  Doctors have a variety of prescribing information available to them and are absolutely not dependent on the persuasions of pharmaceutical companies.




sails said:


> I wonder if MW has ever actually taken seroquel for a few weeks  if he is so good at dishing it out.  He might learn what many  his patients are in for when the time comes to get off it.



On that principle you would be expecting all doctors to take all medications before prescribing for patients!  Just silly and obviously impossible.

Sails, I totally understand that you have endured an extremely distressing experience with your daughter, due to a variety of factors, not least of which is your doctor's inappropriate prescribing of a potent medication which had no proper place in her treatment.

That is no reason to refuse to acknowledge the undoubted benefits of many antipsychotic medications for people suffering any of the psychotic illnesses and who will tolerate the side effects if the drug (a) keeps them alive, and (b) removes or reduces the terror of their illness.

You are also failing to take into account that a drug whose purpose is to correct a particular biochemical deficiency, e.g. in a psychotically ill person may not have the same side effect profile as it would in someone without that psychotic illness/deficiency.

As I've previously said, I'm very sorry that your daughter has had so many problems and I hope she will eventually be able to function well and happily.   I have no wish to engage in some sort of squabble with you, so won't have anything more to say on this issue.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (16 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> I think you flatter yourself, as it was not patronising.
> 
> I don't think that anyone says that drugs are safe, and I don't think anyone really believes that,
> 
> ...




Your responses are typical of many who are in the mainstream medical community condescending and patronising.

Deaths from pharmaceutical drugs is not rare and in fact is alarmingly high as are serious side effects. I wouldnt call half a  million deaths in the US over a 10 year period as rare would you? Neither would i call 2.5 million suffering from serious side effects from taking prescription drugs over that same time period as low.

Given the above statistics it really behoves all of us to look very carefully at any prescription drugs that we are prescribed.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (16 May 2012)

sails, you're like a dog with a bone!!  

You know those women who have one bad experience with a man early in life and they spend their entire lives being bossy, overbearing, overall-wearing, matronly man-haters??  Well that's you, except that instead of men, your object of obsession is seroquel.  Somehow you need to learn how to let it go.  It's not good for you to remain in victim mode for too long.

On another tack:  psychological health will ensure a healthy body, in most cases.  They go together.

Medicine is something you should avoid at all costs - most aren't great for the body.  But when **** hits the fan, be thankful that big pharma has done so much work over so many years.  It could save your life.


----------



## medicowallet (16 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Your responses are typical of many who are in the mainstream medical community condescending and patronising.
> 
> Deaths from pharmaceutical drugs is not rare and in fact is alarmingly high as are serious side effects. I wouldnt call half a  million deaths in the US over a 10 year period as rare would you? Neither would i call 2.5 million suffering from serious side effects from taking prescription drugs over that same time period as low.
> 
> Given the above statistics it really behoves all of us to look very carefully at any prescription drugs that we are prescribed.




It is frustrating, trying to explain some extremely simple concepts to people who profess to know things, when they have no idea. Trust me, I would not talk to you like this if you were in a clinic room with me 

500000 deaths in 3.1 billion patient years = 1.5/10000/yr if your statistics are accurate.
Now, let's think for a moment about the patient years that were GAINED from medicines

Now let's think for a minute how many of the deaths above were in EXTREMELY risky patients where life or death decisions were being made, or without treatment, outlook was perilously poor.  What about overdoses, are they included in the data?

Of COURSE medicines can be dangerous if prescribed, dispensed or taken by fools (no doubt a VAST majority of medicine misadventure is by patients taking medicine incorrectly, not by the medicine itself)

What you lack when you shoot out figures like that is context, and when you finish your medical degree, you know, the 12 or so years of training that you require before you can fully qualify, you will observe how safe the vast majority of medicines are, and you will also observe and prescribe medicines to people who die from them, but guess what, you will surely save and improve many many more lives than you harm.

Medicine, the art form that people who do not deal with the complexities of the human body and mind, do not truly appreciate.

How many people do you know who have died from taking a prescription medicine?  1.5/10000/yr = in 40 years or so of life, 6/1000 of the people you have ever met should have died.

MW

(edit : http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918   Probably around 350000 per year or so, not 500000 per year, so where was your reference from again???)


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Your responses are typical of many who are in the mainstream medical community condescending and patronising.
> 
> Deaths from pharmaceutical drugs is not rare and in fact is alarmingly high as are serious side effects. I wouldnt call half a  million deaths in the US over a 10 year period as rare would you? Neither would i call 2.5 million suffering from serious side effects from taking prescription drugs over that same time period as low.
> 
> Given the above statistics it really behoves all of us to look very carefully at any prescription drugs that we are prescribed.





Well said, IV.  My intention in raising the seroquel issue was to show that  prescription drugs are not necessarily risk free and some are actually highly risky and can leave permanent damage, even death.  

There have been attempts here to mock nutritional supplements as being "risky" and yet I have never seen any supplement with warnings such as I have for antipsychotics.  How much better would it be if doctors first tried nutritional supplements for mild depression - if that doesn't help, then try the stronger medications.







Gringotts Bank said:


> sails, you're like a dog with a bone!!...




lol GB - yes I don't give up easily!  How else do you think I have got through full time caring for two kids for the last few months in addition to caring for an almost bedridden daughter who has lived in her own place.  School runs, school functions, meals, medical appointments, washing for everyone, etc.  Thankfully, the eldest has now moved back home and starting the transition back to home with the little one over the next few months.  It has taken some tenacity to keep up...


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

Julia said:


> ...Thousands of doctors do not see pharmaceutical reps.  MW previously mentioned the various medical journals.  Doctors have a variety of prescribing information available to them and are absolutely not dependent on the persuasions of pharmaceutical companies.




So who provides the information for the medical journals?  Who provides the prescribing information?

If I am barking up the wrong tree, I am happy to be corrected, but need more specific information if I am going to change my understanding.




> On that principle you would be expecting all doctors to take all medications before prescribing for patients!  Just silly and obviously impossible.




Absolutely impossible, I know.  But why isn't there more realistic information out there for the prescribers?  If there was, I would not have suggested anything so "silly".


----------



## Julia (16 May 2012)

sails said:


> So who provides the information for the medical journals?  Who provides the prescribing information?
> 
> If I am barking up the wrong tree, I am happy to be corrected, but need more specific information if I am going to change my understanding.



Frankly, I'm about at the point where I don't care what your understanding is, so determined are you to hold on to your ill founded beliefs.
But, try MIMS for a start.



> Absolutely impossible, I know.  But why isn't there more realistic information out there for the prescribers?  If there was, I would not have suggested anything so "silly".



There is plenty.  See above for just one example.
Because you cannot find full information on the dreaded internet you should not assume the medical profession does not have alternative access to appropriate information.  Of course they do.


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Frankly, I'm about at the point where I don't care what your understanding is, so determined are you to hold on to your ill founded beliefs.
> But, try MIMS for a start.




Julia, that's your opinion and doesn't make it so.  I don't believe my beliefs are ill founded at all.  Have you conversed with others who have gone through similar to what we have?  Or do you just believe everything willy nilly without adequately checking it out before making such definitive statements?

And who provides the prescribing information to MIMS?  Does it drop from the sky? For goodness sake, most people know how the system works.

I am still astounded that you can attack someone else who has been through what we have.  I initially brought up the antipsychotic side effects  as an example that alternative medicines may not be so bad afterall and then you seem to have gone on a personal vendetta against me.  Hope you are happy now.

I am tired of you attacking me personally simply because I am frustrated with the system and what it has done to my daughter.  

No wonder I looked elsewhere for support.  It was clear that to post the progress here at ASF was unfortunately going to be nothing but attacks from you every step of the way WHICH I DIDN'T NEED.  The load was heavy enough.  I have made some good friends elsewhere and believe I have been able to encourage them as much as they have encouraged me in the miserable journey coming off certain prescription medications.


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> sails, you're like a dog with a bone!!
> 
> You know those women who have one bad experience with a man early in life and they spend their entire lives being bossy, overbearing, overall-wearing, matronly man-haters??  Well that's you, except that instead of men, your object of obsession is seroquel.  Somehow you need to learn how to let it go.  It's not good for you to remain in victim mode for too long.
> 
> ...





GB - it might seem like an obsession to you as you are not in my shoes.  We are still dealing with the after-effects on a daily basis.  There are many more issues than I have said here as ASF a hostile place to mention this sort of reality.  There is still a risk of diabetes which is another known side effect.

If you had a family member go though this, you would understand.  And, sure I could stay silent, but I am hoping that my posts just might spare someone else going through this nightmare.  Someone who is offered seroquel (or one of the other antipsychotics) just for sleep or mild anxiety might think twice and do some research before taking the tablets.

If you think you can help others from ruining their lives, I think we have a moral duty to do something about it.  Surely.

And, I was given Endep to help me sleep about four years ago.  Won't even get started on that, but thank goodness for nutritional supplements which have definitely helped me to wean off Endep.  The supplements haven't taken all the withdrawal symptoms away, but on the occasional days I have forgotten to take them, I realise just how much they are helping.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (16 May 2012)

medicowallet said:


> It is frustrating, trying to explain some extremely simple concepts to people who profess to know things, when they have no idea. Trust me, I would not talk to you like this if you were in a clinic room with me
> 
> 500000 deaths in 3.1 billion patient years = 1.5/10000/yr if your statistics are accurate.
> Now, let's think for a moment about the patient years that were GAINED from medicines
> ...




My figures were taken from FDA figures and if anything I would say they  drastically understate the true extent of the problem. Since you are bringing up the drugs for the mentally ill they are right in the firing line for the nasty side effects and unfortunatley suicides from people who have been prescribed these medications. 

Not sure where you get your 3.1 billion patient years from?

There are many even in the mainstream medical community who are concerned at the high incidences of deaths and debilitating side effects of pharmaceutical drugs so I am not sure why you are so strident in your defence of them.

I do understand that doctors are under great pressure to prescribe quick fixes for people and many people will swallow whatever pills come their way. Additionally many people will not take the responsibility to change bad habits and prefer the prescription medications when they could do without them by making some serious lifestyle adjustments.  Having said that it really is buyer beware when it comes to prescription drugs because considering how many there are on the market you really cant expect your average GP do know much more than the basics on many of them.


----------



## Tink (17 May 2012)

Sails, I have to say I admire you and your determination.

As for the comments of 'you are like a dog on a bone' -- I have seen this before, though for a different matter medically, not mental health.
Same scenario, mother fighting for her daughter.

Good for you sails, right, wrong or indifferent, the bottom line is always do your own research.


----------



## johenmo (17 May 2012)

Interesting discussion re prescription drugs....  my personal experience is concern over the lack of warning/information given about long-term use.  NSAIDs are a great example - the side effects or complications are often not mentioned.  I took these for 13 years and during that time the 3 GPs and 3 Rheumatologists (I moved) did not mention things like gastritis.  So now I can't take them and have to manage chronic gastritis.  The losec I took for 2 years... i came off that because I raised the question.  My GP is a good one but I can't expect him to recall instantly every aspect of my care.  BUT.... I do expect something like "if there isn't an improvement in (say) 4 months, then come back and see me, for long term use is not a good option & we may need to look at/for alternatives".

Even the patient info sheets are sadly lacking - Rheumatologist wants to me to add another drug into the mix which has, according to the published medical articles, risks of myeloid and lymphatic malignancies on it's own.  And some raise concerns over mixing the two.  Nothing about this on the sheet!  I raise this and I feel he is somewhat dismissive of it.  

So... am I the only one who notices this?  I wouldn't think so from the sound of it.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> I do understand that doctors are under great pressure to prescribe quick fixes for people and many people will swallow whatever pills come their way. Additionally many people will not take the responsibility to change bad habits and prefer the prescription medications when they could do without them by making some serious lifestyle adjustments.  Having said that it really is buyer beware when it comes to prescription drugs because considering how many there are on the market you really cant expect your average GP do know much more than the basics on many of them.



 The above is entirely sensible.   That people are resorting to drugs to lower their blood pressure, reduce cholesterol etc when they could - with a change in diet and lifestyle - correct the problem themselves is pathetic.

I've never suggested otherwise and have often so advocated.

What I'm at a loss to understand, and all I've protested about, is the way people will  *buy a bottle of manufactured pills in a shop which claim to fix a quite miraculous range of problems yet the substance has never been tested for this, and then say how safe they feel consuming 'natural medicines'.*

If someone can explain that to me it would be really good.

And, Sails, I have not 'attacked you'.  On the contrary I have expressed sympathy for all your difficulties re your daughter.  I have, however, very much criticised the GP who was responsible and asked how it is you can still have faith in this person's capacity to treat her.  I've then tried to explain to you the dreadful reality of true psychosis, a condition where the sufferer who rejects the appropriate medication (side effects notwithstanding) is risking their life.  You have repeatedly been unprepared to acknowledge that these medications are lifesaving and absolutely essential to some people.

But if you consider that is my attacking you, so be it.

However, I'll never be able to dispel the image in my mind of a very dear friend who battled schizophrenia for most of her adult life, needed antipsychotic medication to keep her from the suicidal impulses that so tore her apart, but had a husband who repeatedly told her to 'stop taking all that bloody stuff'.  She did.  She hanged herself.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> If someone can explain that to me it would be really good.




Placebo response.

The way I view medicine is that it has a few dozen absolutely blockbuster drugs which are extremely effective and which test well above statistical significance for effectiveness.  The other thousand or so drugs available for prescription are useless or test barely above placebo.  

The way I view alternative medicines is that few of these get properly tested.  The ones that do get properly tested, don't usually pass the test.  Some do pass the test, and are worthy of mention (eg. krill oil).

The effectiveness of both medicine and its alternatives does rely heavily on placebo, which is influenced by who prescribes (or recommends) it and how much the prescriber believes in it himself.  Placebo should be encouraged.  By this I mean: if someone can achieve good effect with a sugar pill, don't discourage it.  Allow it.


----------



## motorway (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> The above is entirely sensible.   That people are resorting to drugs to lower their blood pressure, reduce cholesterol etc when they could - with a change in diet and lifestyle - correct the problem themselves is pathetic.
> 
> I've never suggested otherwise and have often so advocated.




And Diabetes esp . Not so much pathetic imo. But a huge processed food industry with vested interests and change in work and lifestyle patterns. people have lost their way.

Pictures of my father's generation show very few over weight people. Whether old school photos or street scenes or major events. Slim Women and Men with good figures is the norm.

When I was at school. there maybe was one overweight kid in the class or none.

Today ?

Motorway


----------



## Julia (17 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Placebo response.
> 
> The way I view medicine is that it has a few dozen absolutely blockbuster drugs which are extremely effective and which test well above statistical significance for effectiveness.  The other thousand or so drugs available for prescription are useless or test barely above placebo.
> 
> ...



Interesting suggestion.  Hence the value of double blind crossover trials with large numbers to ascertain true effectiveness.



motorway said:


> And Diabetes esp . Not so much pathetic imo. But a huge processed food industry with vested interests and change in work and lifestyle patterns. people have lost their way.



Motorway, this is yet another example of how we are making excuses for people who fail to take responsibility for their own health (and other) outcomes.  I heard a suggestion by some Council in Victoria earlier this week that they intended to consider charging higher rates for fast food businesses.

The implication is that the consumer is unable to make the choice about eating healthy rather than crap food.  The more we remove decision making from individuals the less becomes their capacity to actually think and act for themselves.



> Pictures of my father's generation show very few over weight people. Whether old school photos or street scenes or major events. Slim Women and Men with good figures is the norm.
> 
> When I was at school. there maybe was one overweight kid in the class or none.
> 
> ...



Yes, that's right.  A multitude of reasons, not the least of which imo are that human beings have become dependent and self indulgent.
In your father's day people were more physically active and ate more real food instead of manufactured rubbish.


----------



## sails (17 May 2012)

tech/a said:


> What never ceases to amaze me are those who are in the most dire of health---turn their back on conventional medicine for Alternate???





Tech, I can't speak for others, but I would turn to alternative if conventional failed. This has happened for my daughter.  She was on prescription meds for depression for four years.  Even her GP has admitted that it has actually done nothing to cure her and has acted more as a tranquiliser than anything else.

Julia seems to have this weird idea that I repeatedly oppose psychotic medication for those who have severe symptoms and who desperately need it.

*This is an outright untruth.*  Julia should go back through my posts in this thread and the one on depression to see that I have actually repeatedly stated that even these high risk antipsychotics may be required for those with extreme issues.  That has remained my belief. 

 However, if we could have the last four years back, I would like to think that a less risky medication had been used, or even that nutritional supplements such as amino acids among other things had been used as a first line of treatment.  Of course, if that had failed, then move on to something stronger, albeit with more risk.

As it turns out, she is slowly improving and she is finding low doses of nutritional supplements to be helping.


----------



## sails (17 May 2012)

Tink said:


> Sails, I have to say I admire you and your determination.
> 
> As for the comments of 'you are like a dog on a bone' -- I have seen this before, though for a different matter medically, not mental health.
> Same scenario, mother fighting for her daughter.
> ...





Thanks for the words of encouragement, Tink...

And research is what I did.  I read thousands of posts of people who had come off seroquel because the medical information pamphlets only tell you so much (and I also studied them).  However,  I wanted to know exactly what we might be in for.  I didn't tell my daughter everything I had found out and yet many of her withdrawal symptoms were exactly as described by others - and I was prepared for it.  I was able to tell her "that's what most others get" and it helped her to accept that it was a temporary very rough ride.  Thankfully she was spared tardive dyskensia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. 

I was most certainly NOT ill-informed...lol.


----------



## sails (17 May 2012)

johenmo said:


> Interesting discussion re prescription drugs....  my personal experience is concern over the lack of warning/information given about long-term use.  NSAIDs are a great example - the side effects or complications are often not mentioned.  I took these for 13 years and during that time the 3 GPs and 3 Rheumatologists (I moved) did not mention things like gastritis.  So now I can't take them and have to manage chronic gastritis.  The losec I took for 2 years... i came off that because I raised the question.  My GP is a good one but I can't expect him to recall instantly every aspect of my care.  BUT.... I do expect something like "if there isn't an improvement in (say) 4 months, then come back and see me, for long term use is not a good option & we may need to look at/for alternatives".
> 
> Even the patient info sheets are sadly lacking - Rheumatologist wants to me to add another drug into the mix which has, according to the published medical articles, risks of myeloid and lymphatic malignancies on it's own.  And some raise concerns over mixing the two.  Nothing about this on the sheet!  I raise this and I feel he is somewhat dismissive of it.
> 
> So... am I the only one who notices this?  I wouldn't think so from the sound of it.





Sorry to hear of your experience, Johenmo.  I have found doctors to be dismissive at times and it is very frustrating.

If my daughter didn't have side effects to seroquel after three years, I don't know how long she would have been kept on it.  It's a scary thought and we would have just carried on thinking she could never get well. 

I can only imagine your frustration at being on NSAIDS for so long and then getting gastritis.  Surely, so unnecessary.  So now you have more trouble than you started with - sounds strangely familiar...


----------



## Bloveld (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Interesting suggestion.  Hence the value of double blind crossover trials with large numbers to ascertain true effectiveness.
> 
> 
> Motorway, this is yet another example of how we are making excuses for people who fail to take responsibility for their own health (and other) outcomes.  I heard a suggestion by some Council in Victoria earlier this week that they intended to consider charging higher rates for fast food businesses.
> ...




Manufactured food = bad
manufactured medicine = good

Any scientific studies proving this?


----------



## medicowallet (18 May 2012)

Bloveld said:


> Manufactured food = bad
> manufactured medicine = good
> 
> Any scientific studies proving this?




Sigh,

So are you implying that if I "invent" a drug and fudge some "scientific" results, then it will be released?

Heard of peer review?   Heard of competitor drug companies analysing results TRYING to get their competitor's product deregistered?

You also live in a limited capacity if you believe ALL processed food is bad and ALL "natural" food is good.

Cost- benefit analyses will always, unfortunately result in some excellent results and a few poor results, but, in all, medicines have contributed insanely well to society and to argue otherwise..

IS JUST CRAZY,

but then again, we all know there are quite a few people with some crazy ideas out there.. I guess that is probably where you fit in.

MW

PS I bet you probably think that fluoride controls your mind.


----------



## johenmo (19 May 2012)

sails said:


> Sorry to hear of your experience, Johenmo.  I have found doctors to be dismissive at times and it is very frustrating.
> 
> If my daughter didn't have side effects to seroquel after three years, I don't know how long she would have been kept on it.  It's a scary thought and we would have just carried on thinking she could never get well.
> 
> I can only imagine your frustration at being on NSAIDS for so long and then getting gastritis.  Surely, so unnecessary.  So now you have more trouble than you started with - sounds strangely familiar...




Thanks.  But things are how they are so despite the gastritis, I eat reasonably carefully and things are improving.  I just miss the odd beer and malt!  I now ask about long-term use.  Even non-scrip stuff used by lost of people everyday like hydrocortisone cream  (a steroid) - frequent use may thin the skin (some debate on this).

Interesting comment re weight and food comparison.  I work in what some would describe as a manufactured food rubbish industry.  Food (incl. booze) is cheaper than it used to be - the % of income spent on food is way down (the facts are out there) - and portion size has increased.  Weight is often an issue amongst the lower income part of society.  A Marketer told me that takeaway food is used as a treat because the lower income means they don't have the money for other treats (e.g. facial, massage, concert).  I recall my dad talking about during the war how one day a chocolate bar was brought home and everyone shared it.  Taxing/increasing rates of fast food isn't a solution.


----------



## sails (19 May 2012)

johenmo said:


> Thanks.  But things are how they are so despite the gastritis, I eat reasonably carefully and things are improving.  I just miss the odd beer and malt!  I now ask about long-term use.  Even non-scrip stuff used by lost of people everyday like hydrocortisone cream  (a steroid) - frequent use may thin the skin (some debate on this).
> 
> Interesting comment re weight and food comparison.  I work in what some would describe as a manufactured food rubbish industry.  Food (incl. booze) is cheaper than it used to be - the % of income spent on food is way down (the facts are out there) - and portion size has increased.  Weight is often an issue amongst the lower income part of society.  A Marketer told me that takeaway food is used as a treat because the lower income means they don't have the money for other treats (e.g. facial, massage, concert).  I recall my dad talking about during the war how one day a chocolate bar was brought home and everyone shared it.  Taxing/increasing rates of fast food isn't a solution.




From an "alternative" viewpoint, Vitamin B3 has some interesting possibilities.  Here is a short excerpt from an online article which may be of interest:



> *Arthritis.* Work done by Dr. William Kaufman in the 1940s and written up in his book The Common Form of Joint Dysfunction demonstrated that many forms of arthritis can benefit from high dose B3. Dr. Kaufman was insistent that the full daily dose of as much as 3000 - 5000 mg be given in many small divided doses throughout the day. He got excellent results. This is an intervention well worth trying.
> 
> [See an excerpt from Dr. Kaufman's book describing use of supplemental B3 to support improved joint mobility. And see Dr. Myhill’s handout on Nutritional Treatments for Arthritis, including B3.]




http://www.prohealth.com/fibromyalgia/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=16953

Small doses divided through the day seems to be the key.  I have used a little B3 since coming off Endep and it also seems to have some valium like properties.  I find it's less like to cause nausea if taken with food and also take in in conjunction with a multi vitamin.  I have also read that it's best to start with very small doses and gradually increase B3.

Fish oil has also been suggested for anti inflammatory uses, however, it can also cause bleeding so would need to be cautious with the gastritis side of things, I would think.

And Vitamin D seems to be a good allrounder.  My daughter is currently on 5000 iu and her blood tests remain within healthy limits.

Now, I'm ducking for cover before I get swiped at again...lol...:couch


----------



## motorway (21 May 2012)

*Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?*

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Motorway


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

motorway said:


> *Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?*
> 
> Motorway




Yes we do know.  Happiness is, _by a street_, the most potent giver of health.

In efficacy, it eclipses drugs, alternatives, surgery, voodoo, faith, sunshine, .... anything you can think of that people use to help themselves attain health.


----------



## motorway (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes we do know.  Happiness is, _by a street_, the most potent giver of health.
> 
> In efficacy, it eclipses drugs, alternatives, surgery, voodoo, faith, sunshine, .... anything you can think of that people use to help themselves attain health.





So you in the dark without food or meaning and if you make your self happy all those things come ?

Or is happiness a fruit that come from being in the sunshine , enjoying a good meal and doing meaningful things ?

Just relax ?
just be happy ?

BUT==>Many things are interdependent and arise together.


Some would say that caring and helping others is the KEY
that bears all the fruits.

Does an insulin dependent diabetic ,just need to be happy or do they need intervention.

Real things that effect health might be few. BUT they do not need people to be happy.
If they are real they will work even if the person is unaware that they are being treated.

Insulin will control diabetes .
Happy thoughts alone will lead to bad outcome

Antibiotics  can be life saving whether the doctor or the patient is happy or not. Or knows the treatment is being given.

Sunshine . good food , fresh water and air.. Same ,they are real things.

Things that are real maybe are few compared to the unreal.
Unreal things need belief and consensus.

But there are probably many real things. But like the air we breath just taken for granted and invisible.

Oxygen or happy thoughts ?

No contest.

Motorway


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

How do I split up the quote to answer each question?


----------



## Joe Blow (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> How do I split up the quote to answer each question?




Take a few minutes to learn how the QUOTE tags work and all will become apparent fairly quickly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&page=3


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

motorway said:


> So you in the dark without food or meaning and if you make your self happy all those things come ?
> 
> Or is happiness a fruit that come from being in the sunshine , enjoying a good meal and doing meaningful things ?
> 
> ...




Thanks Joe, will study that this afternoon.

We're probably on the same page for the most part MW.

There's the question of whether happiness can exist without having to satisfy certain conditions, such as a meaningful employment or a nice meal.  I'd say there's one condition that is necessary, and that is connection with others.  Indians living in cardboard huts on the fringe of land fill tips, with no fresh water, toilet, shower or kitchen can appear quite happy, judging by how much they smile and play.  They have a strong sense of community and tend to look after each other.  They also have sunshine which probably helps, but certainly lack food and a lot of the basics we have.  At night it is very dark without electricity.

I wouldn't agree that things arise together.  There's always cause and effect.  Does the nice meal cause happiness or do thoughts about the nice meal cause happiness?  Can you be unhappy about a nice meal?  Certainly you can.  Can you be happy with a frozen TV dinner each night?  Some people are very happy with this arrangement.  Some would be terribly upset at the prospect of anything other than a chef-prepared meal.  So I'd say thoughts are primary, conditions are irrelevant, even though they seem relevant.

An insulin dependent diabetic will need insulin to live, sure.  But might unhappy thoughts have triggered a severe auto-immune attack on the pancreas at a young age?  As you know, unhappy thoughts can cause heart attack.  It wouldn't be out of the question to think that a similar process could occur in the young diabetic.  Since the thoughts that underlie most negative emotions are hard to identify, a whole range of negative beliefs and attitudes can go unnoticed for an entire life time.

As a doctor, you would have noticed that, by and large, happy people don't tend to have health issues.  But I know your argument would be that the sick are unhappy because they're sick.  I'd say they're sick because they're unhappy.  Even the science bears this out.

edit:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301122156.htm


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> As a doctor, you would have noticed that, by and large, happy people don't tend to have health issues.



Is Motorway a doctor?

There was an interesting program on Radio National a few days ago (apologies: I can't now remember what the program was so can't provide a link) where a researcher made the case for status as an influencer of health and happiness.  Makes sense when we consider that more education, higher income level etc will allow for better choices.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Is Motorway a doctor?
> 
> There was an interesting program on Radio National a few days ago (apologies: I can't now remember what the program was so can't provide a link) where a researcher made the case for status as an influencer of health and happiness.  Makes sense when we consider that more education, higher income level etc will allow for better choices.




I thought I'd read that somewhere, but anyway it doesn't matter either way.

It's a very persuasive argument that more money, status and education (socioeconomic status) will make you happier.  I fall for it all the time.  Everyone falls for it.  But if I can show you just one person who is very happy with his life despite low education and lack of wealth and status, that must bring the whole argument into question.  That's why I gave the example of the happy Indian slum-dwellers.  You could just as easily go the other direction and find one (just one) example of a very high status, well educated and wealthy person who is very unhappy.  The whole argument comes undone.

The hidden intermediary is interpretation (ie. thought).  Since most people view higher status as 'good', attaining it will make them happy.  But that doesn't mean status causes happiness.  If you granted high status to someone who believed high status was 'bad', (eg. a tent embassy person) happiness would not ensue.  Confusion and anxiety would ensue.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (21 May 2012)

Before we even start answering the question about happiness and health we would have to decide what happiness in fact means.

I am not sure we would all have same definiton for happiness.

Regardless if you look at alternative medicine and wholistic approaches to health they usually state looking after the mind, body and soul as the parameters to good health.

So you need to look after your emotional, physcial and spiritual health to have everything in sync.


----------



## medicowallet (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I thought I'd read that somewhere, but anyway it doesn't matter either way.
> 
> It's a very persuasive argument that more money, status and education (socioeconomic status) will make you happier.  I fall for it all the time.  Everyone falls for it.  But if I can show you just one person who is very happy with his life despite low education and lack of wealth and status, that must bring the whole argument into question.




You hit the nail on the head.

Even when I was earning obscene amounts of money per year, it was of little use to me as I was working 7 days per week, and 12-14 hours per day (yes, really working, not like some people who claim to work all day, and just fluff around)

Not until my wise wife, helped me realise the errors in my ways, did I truly start to appreciate life, and, yes, to keep things on topic, I definitely felt healthier because of a change in lifestyle and the resultant happiness.

BUT, these things only come with experience, you find it very difficult to advise others on the errors of your ways, although I will continue to TRY to help my kids out with my experiences, but alas, they keep making the same mistakes I did (and we most do)

MW


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> It's a very persuasive argument that more money, status and education (socioeconomic status) will make you happier.  I fall for it all the time.  Everyone falls for it.  But if I can show you just one person who is very happy with his life despite low education and lack of wealth and status, that must bring the whole argument into question.  That's why I gave the example of the happy Indian slum-dwellers.  You could just as easily go the other direction and find one (just one) example of a very high status, well educated and wealthy person who is very unhappy.  The whole argument comes undone.



I don't have any particular interest in proving or disproving the idea, but producing one person who is atypical hardly renders the whole hypothesis invalid, does it?

Surely status can only exist in context.  i.e. we feel well educated, wealthy, etc only in relation to those around us.

Therefore your happy Indian slum dwellers have every reason to feel happy because they have no comparison with people who live differently.

This principle of status and its relationship to contentment has often been raised in purely financial terms.  Once we have enough money to ensure a reasonable standard of living, it makes little actual difference to us whether we have an additional $100K p.a. or just $10K p.a.  What makes the difference to our satisfaction with our income is how it stacks up with respect to those around us.
Apparently if we are even just a bit more wealthy than our neighbours we are inclined to feel much more satisfied.



> The hidden intermediary is interpretation (ie. thought).  Since most people view higher status as 'good', attaining it will make them happy.  But that doesn't mean status causes happiness.  If you granted high status to someone who believed high status was 'bad', (eg. a tent embassy person) happiness would not ensue.  Confusion and anxiety would ensue.



 Sure.  However, your average citizen is more likely to seek greater status than reject it.   Are you quite certain that if you offered your tent embassy bloke a position of high status and wealth he would reject it?  I'm not.   It's a basic defence mechanism to disparage what we know we can never achieve.



Intrinsic Value said:


> Before we even start answering the question about happiness and health we would have to decide what happiness in fact means.



Yes indeed.  And good luck with that.


----------



## medicowallet (21 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Before we even start answering the question about happiness and health we would have to decide what happiness in fact means.
> 
> I am not sure we would all have same definiton for happiness.
> 
> ...




I think you will find that conventional (effective) medicine shares these values as well.

If you live close to a university, perhaps asking a few medical students what the definition of health is, or what their attitude to "just drugging up the patient" is etc.

I would suggest that attitudes are changing in leaps and bounds in this area, to the main way in which the "alternative" view differed to traditional western practice... all this AND using evidence based medicine which has been tested and shown to actually work!

MW


----------



## Joules MM1 (22 May 2012)

whilst drifting the interweb for silver data i fell upon this:

silver and the flu

http://hsionline.com/2003/12/23/colloidal-silver-and-the-flu/

excerpt


> Last week an HSI member named William sent me a couple of colloidal silver testimonials, and he wrote: “Jenny, colloidal silver is my alternative to flu vaccine.”
> 
> I’m sure that many members are probably aware of the controversies surrounding colloidal silver, a treatment that
> consists of submicroscopic metallic silver particles finely dispersed in water, which is taken orally to prevent infections.


----------



## macca (22 May 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> whilst drifting the interweb for silver data i fell upon this:
> 
> silver and the flu
> 
> ...




I use CS on infections and it works well, I have a little spray bottle and spray it a few times a day.

I buy it at a health food store, normally this would be a stupid thing to say but for some reason people seem to think they can make this themselves. It has never occurred to people to make any other supplement or medicine but idiots think they can make CS, wrong!


----------



## Logique (23 May 2012)

Thank you Australian Government. A parcel in the mail, sharp pointy looking things and test tubes, inviting me to go to the toilet and play with my No.2s.  Oh and the best place to store the sample is...in the fridge, naturally. 

After all that '..A positive result does not mean that you have bowel cancer..'.

Ah, this is living! Thanks Prime Minister. Take that, 'working families'!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 May 2012)

macca said:


> I use CS on infections and it works well, I have a little spray bottle and spray it a few times a day.
> 
> I buy it at a health food store, normally this would be a stupid thing to say but for some reason people seem to think they can make this themselves. It has never occurred to people to make any other supplement or medicine but idiots think they can make CS, wrong!




Is this the same stuff? From a pamphlet given to me at the Hospital the other night by a gentleman clad in purple pyjamas and wearing a pink beanie on his head.



> Part 1
> 
> Oui vult secreta scire, dedet secreta secrete custodire
> 
> ...




I had to take a lycra clad cyclist who fell off his bicycle and cracked his helmet and his skull to the emergency.

gg


----------



## medicowallet (23 May 2012)

Logique said:


> Thank you Australian Government. A parcel in the mail, sharp pointy looking things and test tubes, inviting me to go to the toilet and play with my No.2s.  Oh and the best place to store the sample is...in the fridge, naturally.
> 
> After all that '..A positive result does not mean that you have bowel cancer..'.
> 
> Ah, this is living! Thanks Prime Minister. Take that, 'working families'!




Screening tests sometimes do not make much sense!

The idea is that sometimes you pick up some people who don't have the condition, but in the meantime, you miss less people with the condition. It all has to do with 2 concepts of tests, called sensitivity and specificity. After this screening test, the diagnostic test test that goes the other way and clears this new, much smaller subset of patients...  It may seem silly, but is really cost effective, a bit like how a mammogram only gives an indication of breast cancer, but a biopsy of a couple different tissues gives a diagnosis.

MW.


----------



## Logique (23 May 2012)

Had to read through twice to get across it MedicoW. Thanks - sensitivity, specificity, diagnosis, ok but I don't have to enjoy it!


----------



## johenmo (24 May 2012)

sails said:


> Fish oil has also been suggested for anti inflammatory uses, however, it can also cause bleeding so would need to be cautious with the gastritis side of things, I would think.
> 
> And Vitamin D seems to be a good allrounder.  My daughter is currently on 5000 iu and her blood tests remain within healthy limits.




Fish oil seems ok re gastritis.  And I top up with Vit D3 from time to time.  But, and people in good health may not appreciate this, if one has an ongoing condition or illness then one tends to look for a way to take the edge off it.  I have found healthy eating & keep moving are 2 big factors!


----------



## macca (24 May 2012)

Hi GG,

LOL, WTF does all that mean 

I agree that CS has been hijacked by the nutters, pity really, it does have some scientific basis as can be found in medical history.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 May 2012)

Intrinsic Value said:


> Before we even start answering the question about happiness and health we would have to decide what happiness in fact means.
> 
> I am not sure we would all have same definiton for happiness.
> 
> ...




What happiness means??  I don't think happiness has a meaning.  Like any emotion - if you've experienced it, then you know it.  You know it experientially, which is a far superior knowing than _knowing about something._

Happiness has a very simple cause.  Any action or thought that enhances one's sense of self will lead to happy feelings.  The word 'self' here means ego or _"the set of ongoing thoughts that create the feeling that you are an individual entity with a body and a mind"_.  Most people have a very strange understanding of what 'ego' means, but that's what it means.  A healthy or strong ego creates happiness.  You can go about achieving that in any way you like.  Most people will do things that employ their natural strengths and talents, but relationships are by far the most effective way of enhancing the ego, and therefore health.

But all of this is conditioned happiness.  The happiness only lasts as long as the condition lasts.  If your wife dies, you lose your job or you get old and fragile, so goes the happiness.  And this is where spirituality comes in.  Properly applied, spiritual pursuits encourage a person to see through the illusion of the ego.  Instead of believing that "I am a person with a body and a mind, etc", one begins to see that this sentence (held deep in the unconscious) is merely a thought.  The *ownership and attachment* to body and mind and all the material possession and achievement are merely thought and have no inherent reality.  That's the start of the Path.

If you want to get a glimpse of what the Path really means, there's a few good movies that portray it very well, even though they are Hollywoodized.  'Fight Club' is excellent, as is 'The Truman Show' and 'The Matrix'.  Who would have thought they were all the same story?!  Even small snippets of 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' has great insights if you know how to look.


----------



## johenmo (24 May 2012)

And I see on the TV that Calcium supplementation now doubles the heart attack risk.  Latest 11 yr study contradicts what's gone b4.  I got from it (the 30 sec bite) that large doses is now bad whereas a constant trickle may be beneficial. 

Wonder what's next.


----------



## Julia (24 May 2012)

johenmo said:


> And I see on the TV that Calcium supplementation now doubles the heart attack risk.  Latest 11 yr study contradicts what's gone b4.  I got from it (the 30 sec bite) that large doses is now bad whereas a constant trickle may be beneficial.
> 
> Wonder what's next.



 "on the TV"?   Could you please tell us what the program was and/or what authority was making this claim.

As far as I'm aware, calcium has never ever been recommended in a large dose, but rather always in a regular daily dose.

(Hope it's not one of those alarmist tabloid shows that pass for current affairs.)


----------



## Sitar (25 May 2012)

I lived for some years in Monte Carlo - a tax haven.  I can tell you that many of the mega-rich I knew were not all that happy!

It really taught me a valuable lesson.


----------



## motorway (25 May 2012)

Julia said:


> "on the TV"?   Could you please tell us what the program was and/or what authority was making this claim.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, calcium has never ever been recommended in a large dose, but rather always in a regular daily dose.
> 
> (Hope it's not one of those alarmist tabloid shows that pass for current affairs.)






Calcium Supplements Linked to Significantly Increased Heart Attack Risk, Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (May 23, 2012) ”” Calcium supplements might increase the risk of having a heart attack, and should be "taken with caution," concludes research published in the online issue of the journal Heart.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523200752.htm

The evidence that dietary calcium is helpful while calcium supplements are not can be explained by the fact that dietary calcium is taken in small amounts, spread throughout the day, so is absorbed slowly, they say.
Supplements, on the other hand, cause calcium levels in the blood to soar above the normal range, and it is this flooding effect which might ultimately be harmful, they suggest.

"Calcium supplements have been widely embraced by doctors and the public, on the grounds that they are a natural and therefore safe way of preventing osteoporotic fractures," they write.
"It is now becoming clear that taking this micronutrient in one or two daily [doses] is not natural, in that it does not reproduce the same metabolic effects as calcium in food," they say.

Given that it is neither safe nor effective, boosting calcium intake from supplements should be discouraged, they contend.
And they conclude: "We should return to seeing calcium as an important component of a balanced diet, and not as a low cost panacea to the universal problem of postmenopausal bone loss."

The authors base their findings on almost 24,000 participants of one of the German arms of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study in Heidelberg.



.


----------



## medicowallet (25 May 2012)

motorway said:


> Calcium Supplements Linked to Significantly Increased Heart Attack Risk, Study Suggests
> ScienceDaily (May 23, 2012) ”” Calcium supplements might increase the risk of having a heart attack, and should be "taken with caution," concludes research published in the online issue of the journal Heart.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523200752.htm
> ...




I am not going to read the article, and endocrinology an area of expertise of mine, but potentially a confounder is Vitamin D, and to a lesser extent, the mobilisation of the renal system.

I wonder if these extra complications are not related to the use of calcium, but are in fact due to the lower level of vitamin D which may be present in people who require calcium supplementation, be that either direct or indirect (ie vit d increased if outside gardening, rather than being inside watching bold and the beautiful)

So whether these results are from trials or from observation, truly impacts how these results can be interpreted, although, in the article posted it probably addresses this, but, too lazy to read it 

MW


----------



## medicowallet (25 May 2012)

"Confounding is a possible explanation of our findings as subgroup analysis may interfere with the balancing effects of randomisation on potential confounders. However, within each subgroup, the baseline characteristics of the participants allocated to calcium and vitamin D seemed well matched to those allocated to placebo. In contrast, as expected, women using personal calcium differed from women not using personal calcium in a number of factors that might influence cardiovascular outcomes. However, the WHI investigators have previously reported no significant interactions with these factors, calcium and vitamin D, and risk of death from myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease””except for body mass index, with obese women having a lower risk of death from myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease with calcium and vitamin D than non-obese women.4 Obesity does not explain our findings since it was more common in women not using personal calcium, and would have tended to obscure an interaction effect. 

In the WHI CaD participants the incidence of cardiovascular events was relatively low, reflecting the comparative youth of the cohort. Thus, despite its size and long duration, the WHI CaD Study had insufficient power to detect small effect sizes, particularly when subgroups are considered. For example, in women not taking personal calcium supplements at randomisation, the study had 80% power to detect a 33% increase in clinical myocardial infarction. 

The WHI CaD Study accounts for 75%–80% of the weighting in the meta-analyses of co-administered calcium and vitamin D, and 45%–55% of the weighting in the meta-analysis of calcium with or without vitamin D. However, the results for the individual studies in all the meta-analyses are quite consistent and do not suggest an undue influence of a single outlying study or WHI CaD."

therefore most conclusion was drawn from one study, so it would be good to test out the study.. Although, the BMJ usually has very high standards, so it could be true.

There also seems to be systematic difference between groups, so it would probably have to be examined further before recommendations changed (just guessing here)

MW


----------



## Julia (25 May 2012)

Thanks for the link, Motorway.   
It sounds less than completely conclusive imo but I'd appreciate Medicowallet taking the time to read it (about a minute) and commenting further.

The reason most people take calcium supplemements is because they find it difficult to obtain sufficient calcium intake via the daily food intake.


----------



## bellenuit (31 May 2012)

Just saw this tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the presenter of Nova Science....
 ‏
Q: What do you call Alternative Medicine that survives double-blind laboratory tests? 

A: Regular Medicine.


----------



## johenmo (1 June 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Just saw this tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the presenter of Nova Science....
> ‏
> Q: What do you call Alternative Medicine that survives double-blind laboratory tests?
> 
> A: Regular Medicine.




 ......


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 June 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Just saw this tweet from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the presenter of Nova Science....
> ‏
> Q: What do you call Alternative Medicine that survives double-blind laboratory tests?
> 
> A: Regular Medicine.




This is true.  I'll take it one step further.

Q: What do you call Regular Medicine?

A: Whatever a bunch of scientists have decided works.  When they decide it works, then the double blind studies prove what they expect it to prove.... once a critical number of the population believes it, it becomes truth... that is until the whole idea wears off and a new drug has to be created.... a fresher newer more "potent" one, with fresh potent new beliefs and studies.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 June 2012)

I'm glad there were no objections to my last post because it's time to ramp it up a little bit more.  The bit about alternative medicines being hocus pocus was easy to demonstrate.  Let's now focus on medicine, and how fatally flawed it is also.  There's no possible argument that can be made against the following findings*.  It takes placebo studies to a new level and the future of medicine is undeniable - it is in learning how to change beliefs.  Add in the little known 'decline effect', which demonstrates that most effective medicines are only effective because a critical number of people believe in them, and what we really have in modern medicine is..... nothing.  And that's a good starting point.  Harvard University have realized this, starting their own program in placebo studies.  If you think I'm pushing the envelope with this stuff, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  This thread is about half way to where I'd like it to be.  

[from www.bbc.co.uk]

*Negative experiences can stop painkillers working
By James Gallagher Health reporter, BBC News


A patient's belief that a drug will not work can become a self fulfilling prophecy, according to researchers.

They showed the benefits of painkillers could be boosted or completely wiped out by manipulating expectations.

The study, published in Science Translational Medicine, also identifies the regions of the brain which are affected.

Experts said this could have important consequences for patient care and for testing new drugs.

Heat was applied to the legs of 22 patients, who were asked to report the level of pain on a scale of one to 100. They were also attached to an intravenous drip so drugs could be administered secretly.

The initial average pain rating was 66. Patients were then given a potent painkiller, remifentanil, without their knowledge and the pain score went down to 55.

They were then told they were being given a painkiller and the score went down to 39.

*Then, without changing the dose, the patients were then told the painkiller had been withdrawn and to expect pain, and the score went up to 64.*

*So even though the patients were being given remifentanil, they were reporting the same level of pain as when they were getting no drugs at all.*

Professor Irene Tracey, from Oxford University, told the BBC: "It's phenomenal, it's really cool. *It's one of the best analgesics we have and the brain's influence can either vastly increase its effect, or completely remove it."*

The study was conducted on healthy people who were subjected to pain for a short period of time. She said people with chronic conditions who had unsuccessfully tried many drugs for many years would have built up a much greater negative experience, which could impact on their future healthcare.

Professor Tracey said: "Doctors need more time for consultation and to investigate the cognitive side of illness, the focus is on physiology not the mind, which can be a real roadblock to treatment."

Brain scans during the experiment also showed which regions of the brain were affected.

The expectation of positive treatment was associated with activity in the cingulo-frontal and subcortical brain areas while the negative expectation led to increased activity in the hippocampus and the medial frontal cortex.

Professor Anthony Jones, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: "Work from our own lab and those of others indicates that expectations are a key driver to pain perception and to placebo analgesic effects. So this provides further confirmation of that idea in relation to drug effects.

"This has been demonstrated previously in relation to nitrous oxide analgesic effects, but the current study provides good evidence that this phenomenon is not due to the subject saying what they think the investigator wants to hear."

The researchers also say clinical trials, which are used to determine the effectiveness of drugs, should be modified.

"Rather than seeking to control for psychological components, trial designs could be developed that aim to maximize the effects of therapeutic agents by integrating the effects of expectation and active treatment."


----------



## sails (5 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Interesting discussion re prescription drugs....  my personal experience is concern over the lack of warning/information given about long-term use.  NSAIDs are a great example - the side effects or complications are often not mentioned.  I took these for 13 years and during that time the 3 GPs and 3 Rheumatologists (I moved) did not mention things like gastritis.  So now I can't take them and have to manage chronic gastritis.  The losec I took for 2 years... i came off that because I raised the question.  My GP is a good one but I can't expect him to recall instantly every aspect of my care.  BUT.... I do expect something like "if there isn't an improvement in (say) 4 months, then come back and see me, for long term use is not a good option & we may need to look at/for alternatives".
> 
> Even the patient info sheets are sadly lacking - Rheumatologist wants to me to add another drug into the mix which has, according to the published medical articles, risks of myeloid and lymphatic malignancies on it's own.  And some raise concerns over mixing the two.  Nothing about this on the sheet!  I raise this and I feel he is somewhat dismissive of it.
> 
> So... am I the only one who notices this?  I wouldn't think so from the sound of it.





Johenmo, I was chatting with someone qualified in nutritional medicine today and she mentioned Serrapeptase which has had apparently had wide clinical use spanning over twenty-five years throughout Europe and Asia.  It appears to be a viable alternative to salicylates, ibruprofen and the more potent NSAIDS.  Unlike these drugs, Serrapeptase is a naturally occurring physiological agent with no inhibitory effects on prostaglandins and is devoid of gastrointestinal side effects. There are studies and and technical information at http://www.serrapeptase.info/

Thought you might be interested, Johenmo.  I haven't checked it out thoroughly, however, thought I would post this should it be something you are interested to research further.

And much of what I typed in the first paragraph I copied from the printout given to me by this nutritional medicine practitioner and there is further information which I haven't re-typed here such as other benefits from this enzyme other than pain relief.

I see there are various brands available from Iherb.

Back in my box now...lol  :couch


----------



## johenmo (5 June 2012)

Tks Sails.  Will look it up.  Considering that many of our conventional medicines are either from nature or based on a natural medicine, there's nothing lost in looking into it.  any single thing works differently for each person.
Cheers


----------



## Julia (7 June 2012)

A news item today that Ketamine is being trialled as an antidepressant.  



> Pharmacologically, ketamine is classified as an NMDA receptor antagonist.[2] At high, fully anesthetic level doses, ketamine has also been found to bind to opioid μ receptors type 2 in cultured human neuroblastoma cells – however, without agonist activity[3] – and to sigma receptors in rats.[4] Also, ketamine interacts with muscarinic receptors, descending monoaminergic pain pathways and voltage-gated calcium channels.[5] Like other drugs of this class such as tiletamine and phencyclidine (PCP), it induces a state referred to as "dissociative anesthesia"[6] and is used as a recreational drug.
> 
> Ketamine has a wide range of effects in humans, including analgesia, anesthesia, hallucinations, elevated blood pressure, and bronchodilation.[7] Ketamine is primarily used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, usually in combination with a sedative. Other uses include sedation in intensive care, analgesia (particularly in emergency medicine), and treatment of bronchospasm.




The researcher enthusiastically described how Ketamine had an antidepressant effect in just minutes.
Well, fancy that!   Why does she think it's so enthusiastically traded on the streets?

Giving a depressed person a shot of any synthetic opiate (eg morphine, pethidine et al) would also undoubtedly make them feel pretty happy.

As if there were not enough problems with drugs and their side effects already.



> How is it used?
> 
> Ketamine can be swallowed, snorted or injected. It is also sometimes smoked with other substances such as cannabis or tobacco.
> Effects of ketamine
> ...


----------



## Calliope (13 March 2013)

I posted this on another thread yesterday. It may be of interest to readers of this site.

I am a great believer in the powers of Manuka honey. It saved my leg. Six months ago I sustained a deep puncture wound to the shin of my right leg. After a few days without treatment it became infected. I went to Emergency at the local hospital. I was admitted and they operated on my leg and kept me in hospital for four days on an antibiotic drip. I was then released but continued on oral antibiotics, and visiting health care service daily to dress the wound. I went back to outpatients weekly to assess progress.

This process went on for three months, with a further operation and an MRI scan which showed a nasty leg ulcer. Now MRSA set in and the area around my wound developed a bunch on watery blisters. The blisters and the wound showed no sign of healing and the anti-staph drugs weren't working and they were playing havoc with my gut.

I discontinued the daily nurse visits and started to dress my wounds with Manuka honey. Now on the weekly visits to outpatients they were happy to see my leg improving. I never let on about the honey. After they dressed my leg at outpatients I used to go home and replace it with my honey bandages. 

To cut a long story short the honey fixed my leg. Now there is hardly a scar.

Any old honey won't do. It is essential to use NZ Manuka honey with an UMF rating over 10. I used Summerglow honey with an UMF rating of 16+. It doesn't come cheap, but is worth it's weight in gold. It has a great taste too.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 April 2017)

In the realm of energy healing, the 'real deal' is a very rare occurrence (99.99% are weirdos or dreamers).  There's actually a guy in Melbourne who can do it.


----------



## basilio (17 April 2017)

Calliope said:


> I posted this on another thread yesterday. It may be of interest to readers of this site.
> 
> I am a great believer in the powers of Manuka honey. It saved my leg. Six months ago I sustained a deep puncture wound to the shin of my right leg. After a few days without treatment it became infected. I went to Emergency at the local hospital. I was admitted and they operated on my leg and kept me in hospital for four days on an antibiotic drip. I was then released but continued on oral antibiotics, and visiting health care service daily to dress the wound. I went back to outpatients weekly to assess progress.
> 
> ...





This story from Calliope deserves a bump up. Honey and in particular Manuka honey has been recognised by both alternative healers and the medical profession as a very effective aide to treating wounds.. 

*Honey: A Biologic Wound Dressing*
Monday, 06/15/15 | 118099 reads
 1755  40  109 googleplus75
Author(s): 
Peter Molan, PhD and Tanya Rhodes, PhD
Issue: 
Volume 27 - Issue 6 - June 2015





Login toDownload PDF version
_Index: 
Wounds 2015;27(6):141-151
Key words: 
biology of wound healing
components of wound healing
honey
wound dressing
*Abstract: *Honey has been used as a wound dressing for thousands of years, but only in more recent times has a scientific explanation become available for its effectiveness. It is now realized that honey is a biologic wound dressing with multiple bioactivities that work in concert to expedite the healing process. The physical properties of honey also expedite the healing process: its acidity increases the release of oxygen from hemoglobin thereby making the wound environment less favorable for the activity of destructive proteases, and the high osmolarity of honey draws fluid out of the wound bed to create an outflow of lymph as occurs with negative pressure wound therapy. 


   Honey has a broad-spectrum antibacterial activity, but there is much variation in potency between different honeys. There are 2 types of antibacterial activity. In most honeys the activity is due to hydrogen peroxide, but much of this is inactivated by the enzyme catalase that is present in blood, serum, and wound tissues. In manuka honey, the activity is due to methylglyoxal which is not inactivated. The manuka honey used in wound-care products can withstand dilution with substantial amounts of wound exudate and still maintain enough activity to inhibit the growth of bacteria. There is good evidence for honey also having bioactivities that stimulate the immune response (thus promoting the growth of tissues for wound repair), suppress inflammation, and bring about rapid autolytic debridement. There is clinical evidence for these actions, and research is providing scientific explanations for them.

http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/honey-biologic-wound-dressing_


----------



## basilio (17 August 2019)

How do we deal with people who promote dangerous, mad products as cure alls ?

 
* Group to tout bleach-based ‘miracle cure’ at upstate New York 'seminar' *

Attendants could be given the powerful bleach, just days after FDA put out its strongest warning about the ‘miracle mineral solution’
Advocates of a “medicine” called MMS will gather in a hotel in upstate New York on Saturday to promote what they claim to be a miracle cure for cancer that is in fact a powerful bleach that can cause serious harm and even death.

The self-proclaimed “Genesis II Church of Health and Healing” – a group that in reality is neither a church nor a medical outfit – plans to lure supporters and unsuspecting individuals to a “seminar” at the Marienthal Country Inn in Eden, New York. It is charging $450 per person, or $800 for a couple, for the privilege of being inculcated over two days into the false promises of its remedy, “miracle mineral solution” or MMS.

A document seen by the Guardian shows that the group intends to provide the industrial-strength bleach to attendants for them to drink. “We just might surprise everyone every so often with a dose of MMS1. Be ready,” its literature states.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/16/bleach-based-miracle-cure-group-seminar-new-york


----------



## moXJO (17 August 2019)

basilio said:


> How do we deal with people who promote dangerous, mad products as cure alls ?
> 
> 
> * Group to tout bleach-based ‘miracle cure’ at upstate New York 'seminar' *
> ...



I knew guys that swore by this stuff. They were regulars to Africa and would pick up malaria. This apparently would knock it on the head.

I never paid much attention after that.

Chlorine dioxide has been used for 100 years. It's sodium chlorite and citrus acid. I have no idea of the levels they ingest.


----------

