When Good Doctors Prescribe Bad Medicine

How to avoid becoming a casualty of the other Drug War — for profits at the expense of your health:

A striking feature of modern medicine is the debilitating and lethal consequences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which rank as one of the top 10 causes of death and illness in the developed world

---

With an estimated 2 to 4 million serious injuries each year, drug therapy stands as one of the most significant perils to health resulting from human activity.

---

833,076 adverse drug events reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during 2014. …Although drug adverse effects are estimated to account for 100,000 to 200,000 patient deaths and 1 to 2 million hospitalizations each year

---

[O]ne in every five [new drugs] eventually caused enough serious harm in patients to warrant a severe warning or withdrawal from the market

Drug companies are supposed to prove safety and efficacy in multiple clinical trials. These are then reviewed by the FDA before approval. So why do we have such a high casualty rate? Cheating.

Falsifying the Scientific Record

There is good evidence of selective outcome reporting in published reports of randomized trials…. We examined reporting practices for trials of gabapentin …We identified 20 clinical trials for which internal documents were available … of these trials, 12 were reported in publications.

A company is not going to ignore a good result. The 8 trials that went unreported were hopeless failures and swept under the rug.

For 8 of the 12 reported trials, the primary outcome defined in the published report differed from that described in the protocol. …
For a trial result to be valid, the criterion for success has to be specified ahead of time. If you can pick and choose after the fact, that is no different from shooting an arrow at the side of a barn and painting a target where it lands. So only 4 of the 20 trials actually succeeded.

For a trial to be regarded a success, there must no more than a 1 in 20 likelihood of a positive result due to chance. If you design a trial to this minimum standard, and run 20 trials, the likelihood that at least one of them will have a successful outcome by accident is 64%. So the sponsor left little to chance. If the medication actually worked as claimed, the vast majority of the 20 trials would have been successes.

But selective reporting is by no means the only method of falsifying the evidence. If the sponsor is designing a “me too” drug, it is necessary to show the drug is at least as good as the competition:

[S]ome physicians had so far forgotten their professional ethics that, again at the behest of their sponsors, they were getting the results their sponsors wanted in drug trials by hobbling the other horse in the race, the competitor’s drug, which in the trials was administered in the wrong dose by the wrong route

Or better yet:

Empirical evidence suggests that … industry-sponsored trials are more likely to compare the sponsored intervention against an inactive or straw man comparator.

If companies are going to cheat when it comes to efficacy, should we expect any better with regard to safety?

GlaxoSmithKline would not face prosecution for deliberately withholding trial data, which revealed not only that Seroxat was ineffective at treating childhood depression but also that it increased the risk of suicidal behaviour in this patient group. The decision not to prosecute followed a four and a half year investigation and was taken on the grounds that the law at the relevant time was insufficiently clear.

A depressed child is unlikely to recognize a drug is causing his or her suicidal impulses, and is in a poor position to refuse the medication. The emotional devastation wreaked upon a parent who has lost a child is horrific. Selling an ineffective drug that instead increases suicide risk among children is about as low as one could possibly go. Ethics? If a human were to behave like a corporation, he or she would be regarded as a sociopath. Unlike corporeal persons, corporate persons have no empathy, compassion, remorse nor fear of punishment. Pharmas will strive to hide any risk and claim any benefit that they can get away with.

What about whistleblowers?
Meanwhile sponsoring companies threatened the researchers to prevent them from publishing unfavorable results.

They had signed non-disclosure agreements. To complete the picture:
Metaanalysis is a rigorous technique whereby all the literature concerning a particular drug could … be identified, and … the efficacy of the drug in all comparable high quality trials, could be worked out… it was found that companies were paying physician scientists to publish the same results of the same trials in different journals, under different authors’ names, with no crossreferencing.
Since they were also paying scientists to publish only the positive results, and bury the negative ones, this systematic obfuscation had the effect of creating artificial scientific support for a drug, both before regulatory agencies, and, of course, to impress the prescribing physician.

And afterward:

Post-Marketing Surveillance

As for post-market surveillance — “the single most important function…for protecting the public against the dangers of harmful drugs” — it is put largely in the hands of the manufacturers

What do drug companies do with this awesome responsibility? Fox, meet henhouse...

Damage Control After Approval

Damage control for them means damage to us. Their tactics are:

  • Once serious adverse effects become known, minimize the risk.
  • Place convenient, seemingly impartial and well-referenced summaries in places doctors will look
  • Persuade patients to take, and keep taking the offending drug in spite of risks and warning signs.

Their means toward this end is to employ physician “experts” to write convenient, comprehensive, well-referenced reviews of the medication. Convenient for a busy doctor because everything s/he needs to know is all in one place instead of having to chase through the literature to find different details. These seemingly respectable pieces show up in seemingly respectable places, like Mayo Clinic and Medscape.

As an example, let’s try Google Scholar to search for “adverse effects” and Fosamax. The first result is an impressive looking article from Mayo clinic. Google thinks this is the most relevant result because it is the most frequently visited. Clicking on it, we get this full text for free instead of an extortionate fee. Now heading to Subtrochanteric Femoral [i.e.,hip] Fractures:

Although these bisphosphonate-associated fractures are uncommon, several case reports have described some of their typical clinical features. .... Recently, the association between such fractures and bisphosphonates has been questioned, and these fractures were suggested to be merely an uncommon subtype of osteoporotic femur fracture

Oh OK, uncommon. Just a few case reports, maybe not drug related at all. Nothing to see here (to be continued).

Uncommon? Underreported:

It is estimated that as few as 5% of all adverse drug reactions are reported to appropriate agencies. Underreporting is likely related to ... failure to recognize adverse drug reactions when they occur. Children are particularly vulnerable.

Underreported because physicians think drugs are safe:

Factors associated with under-reporting [drug adverse events] were ...indifference (the one case that an individual doctor might see could not contribute to medical knowledge) and insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a particular adverse reaction) in 67%; and complacency (only safe drugs are allowed on the market) in 47% of studies.

Damage Prevention

We have seen that the record is thick with false information. If you are so inclined, there is a wealth of information to be found at Google Scholar. Be properly skeptical of the vast number of studies praising a drug’s benefits and minimizing its drawbacks. If you are looking for adverse effects there, best to search on the drug class, for example, bisphosphonates for Fosamax. If you don’t know what effect you are looking for, use “adverse effects”. Then search individually on a specific adverse effect. Exactly how to search in this manner is narrated in the Statin research below.

Always Check the FDA label — you can get this via a web search for “FDA label” and the drug name. Pay special attention to listings of adverse effects, drug interactions, whether to take with or without food, and the effect of mineral supplements.

This is not enough though, because information regarding important adverse effects is likely to have been concealed by the manufacturer. At the other extreme, there are alarmists out there with websites long on outrage and short on facts. This will not do either.

Useful sites:

askapatient.com— Compiles patients’ ratings of medications on a scale of 1-5 and presents their individual commentaries. Compares ratings of different medications in the same class. Provides a summary of adverse events reported to FDA. Excellent site. Only caution: in some cases the average rating is derived from a small number of individuals. (Originally suggested by SSK in the comments)

patientsville.com — Lists side effects by frequency of patient reports, by individual medication. It also displays individual patient reports. The downsides: it is extremely slow, and the user interface is uneven. It takes scrolling down to get side effects by frequency. Note that this does not tell you how severe the side effect is. In the case of “femur fracture” this is self-evident, but in the case of myalgia it is not. It looks like they are using reports submitted to the FDA as well as reports submitted to the site.

Attorney websites are a good source of information. Attorneys will not hide any problems, nor will they make alarmist claims that would not be actionable:

  • Drugwatch — They have a list of drugs and adverse effects. Not comprehensive — none of these attorney sites are. Some additional information showed up via google site search.
  • Lawyers and Settlements — They’ve got lists of lawsuits, past and present. They set forth the allegations in the suit, and the result if the suit has been decided.
  • American Injury Attorney Group > Lawsuits > Bad Drugs — A list of drug lawsuits. They tell you what the drugs did to cause the suit.

Consumer Reports has a list of 10 drugs to avoid.

Here is a database intended for doctors that lets you search for drugs indexed by adverse reaction. From their front page:

The sole fact that the patient knows that ADRs [adverse Drug Reactions] can occur is enough to discourage the patient let alone if the individual should actually experience such a reaction during therapy

The implication being the doctor should not warn patients of possible adverse effects, and should minimize them if reported. We already know that some physicians believe only safe drugs are allowed on the market. This is bad news. For some medications the onset of certain side effects is a dire event. In such cases the medication should be stopped immediately lest really serious damage ensue. Two examples are:

  • Fluoroquinolones (Cipro, Levaquin, etc.) — tendinitis or neurological symptoms
  • Dopamine Agonists (medications for Parkinson’s and Restless Leg Syndrome) — lightheadedness or impulse control disorder (established users must taper slowly)

Impulse control disorder? That refers to compulsive gambling, sexuality, or eating. Some patients who had previously been responsible citizens have lost everything due to dopamine agonist induced compulsive gambling. Many patients did not realize the drug was causing it.

​So when taking a new medication, be on the alert for any adverse effect. It may occur immediately, or be delayed for quite some time. If you experience some new symptom, get to work and search askapatient, patientsville, Google Scholar and the web to see if the medication may be the cause, and the possible outcomes. In any event, ask your doctor for a different medication. If you can quit the medication safely, do so.

Just Say No to Bad Drugs

BISPHOSPHONATES

(Fosamax, Reclast, Zometa, Actonel, Boniva, Aredia)

[S]ubtrochanteric and diaphyseal fractures occurred at a rate of 13 per 10,000 patient-years in untreated women and 31 per 10,000 patient-years in women receiving alendronate [Fosamax]

The subtrochanteric is the top of the femur near where it enters the hip socket. If it breaks, this is a hip fracture. The diaphyseal is also the femur but lower down. So according to this study, Fosamax more than doubles hip fracture risk. The authors go on to speculate that maybe the increased risk is due to osteoporosis in Fosamax patients, Hence the comment in the whitewash posted at Mayo Clinic:

these fractures were suggested to be merely an uncommon subtype of osteoporotic femur fracture

Fosamax was supposed to solve that problem. Yet the FDA label says:

FOSAMAX increases bone mass and reduces the incidence of fractures, including those of the hip and spine

It does increase bone mass but that is not the same as bone strength. How did this happen? From that same label:

In the Three-Year Study ...fractures of the hip occurred in 22 (2.2%) of 1005 patients on placebo and 11 (1.1%) of 1022 patients on FOSAMAX, p=0.047.

The cutoff is pThe most commonly reported Fosamax side effects...
Femur Fracture (5674)
Anxiety (3177)
Osteonecrosis (2820)
Oh yeah, jaw necrosis. As noted at the link you won’t do better with any of the other bisphosphonates, either.

What to do to prevent hip fractures? Per the previous articles in this series, take vitamins K1 & K2, plus vitamin D, and a couple of other essential nutrients.

What vitamins K and D do for you [25(OH)D is Vitamin D] :

[A] 50 % higher risk of hip fracture was observed in subjects with both low vitamin K1 and 25(OH)D compared with subjects with high vitamin K1 and 25(OH)D (HR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.18–1.90).

In other words, with high levels of K and D the hip fracture risk is only 67% (1/1.50) of the risk at low levels. In medspeak this is a hazard ratio of .67. Note how the data was framed as the dangers of low levels of vitamins rather than the benefits of high levels.

How about alleged improvement due to Fosamax? According to this meta analysis, the risk ratio for hip fracture, according to some published studies, was .63-.65. For the other bisphosphonates it ranged from .58-.73. Even if these numbers are accurate, you will do as well with vitamins, without the risks.

---

The reader may have noted that one of these studies used relative risk (RR) and the other, hazard ratio (HR). What is the difference?

The Cox proportional hazards model is an appealing analytic method because it is both powerful and flexible. The hazard ratio, which is derived from this model, provides a statistical test of treatment efficacy and an estimate of relative risk of events of interest to clinicians

.
HR is an estimate of RR, so they are comparable measures.

---

STATINS

The most popular statin is Crestor (rosuvastatin), the 13th most prescribed drug in the US. At patientsville the most common side effect is myalgia, muscle pain. A search of Google Scholar using “Crestor myalgia and ‘adverse effect’ “, since 2012, finds this PLoS One study:

We examined rhabdomyolysis, but also included less devastating muscle-related side effects. These are important in their own right, due to their greater frequency, significant effects on quality of life, and impact on statin therapy non-compliance.…

Appreciable occurrences of muscle-related side effects were not uncovered during prerelease clinical testing of statins.

Oh, what a surprise.

Accordingly, side effects, including a range of muscle and tendon disorders extending from myalgia to life-threatening rhabdomyolysis, became evident primarily after the drugs won FDA approval. ... Exemplifying this, the elevated occurrence of rhabdomyolysis with cerivastatin (Baycol) culminated in numerous deaths and the withdrawal of cerivastatin from the market. More recently, the FDA announced new safety recommendations for high dose simvastatin, citing an “increased risk of myopathy when using the 80 mg dose of simvastatin.” This warning was issued only after many years of clinical use of simvastatin, indeed among the best-selling prescription drugs, and five years after its loss of patent protection.

Rhabdomyolysis?

Rhabdomyolysis is a serious syndrome due to a direct or indirect muscle injury. It results from the death of muscle fibers and release of their contents into the bloodstream. This can lead to complications such as renal (kidney) failure

Also:

Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is characterized by the predominant presence of necrotic muscle fibres in muscle biopsy and variable response to immunosuppressive treatment.…

Our data show an increasing incidence of IMNM, which is mainly accounted for by anti-HMGCR-positive IMNM associated with the use of statins.

What do we get for all this risk? Searching on statin benefits, via Google Scholar since 2012, should be a slam dunk for the Pharma team. First up:

Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention

In view of evidence that statin therapy increases risk of diabetes, the balance of benefit and risk of these drugs in primary prevention has become controversial….

Oh, diabetes risk too. After further experimentation, searching on “statin AROUND benefit ‘cardiovascular mortality risk’ “ we find a meta-analysis of statin benefit, the gold standard of evidence:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment by performing a meta-analysis of statin [trials] with extended follow-up beyond 6 years…..

Over the entire 6.7–14.7 years of follow-up, a significant reduction in the rates of all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.90), cardiovascular mortality (0.87) ... was observed in favour of the original statin group.

Let’s compare to Vitamin K:

[I]ndividuals who increased their intake of [K1] or [K2] during follow-up had a lower risk of cancer (HR: 0.64 and HR: 0.41 respectively) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.57 and HR: 0.55 respectively) than individuals who decreased or did not change their intake. Also, individuals who increased their intake of dietary [K1] had a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality risk (HR: 0.52) [confidence intervals removed for clarity]

Increasing your vitamin K, you get a 44% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.56) versus 10% with statins (RR .90). Likewise, with vitamin K, you get a 48% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk (HR .52) versus 13% with statins (RR .87). All without the risking death of muscle fibers, or diabetes. Plus with K you get the reduction in hip fracture risk as well.

Why are statins and bisphosphonates even on the market? Why are doctors not checking everyone’s levels of vitmains D and K? Profit driven medicine courtesy of Big Pharma.

----

FLUOROQUINOLONES

Fluoroquinolones (“FQs”) are antibiotics that can be life-saving, if you really need them. All too often they are prescribed casually, where an antibiotic may not even be needed, or if an antibiotic is needed, where something less toxic will do.

FQs can be identified by the ending of -floxacin in the generic name. Members of this class include Cipro, Levaquin, and Avelox. So what goes wrong?

Lets’ take a look at Cipro. We don’t have to look far for this one — the FDA label has a black box warning right at the top (Bolding NOT added):

WARNING: Fluoroquinolones, including CIPRO®, are associated with an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in all ages. This risk is further increased in older patients usually over 60 years of age, in patients taking corticosteroid drugs, and in patients with kidney, heart or lung transplants (See WARNINGS).
How serious is this? Let’s put it this way: Fosamax and Crestor did not get the black box.

in a large population-based case control analysis, patients treated with FQs exhibited a substantially increased risk of developing tendon disorders overall (1.7-fold), tendon rupture (1.3-fold), and ATR [achilles tendon rupture] (4.1-fold).
Neuropathy is another problem:

We identified 6,226 cases and 24,904 controls. Current users of FQs were at a higher risk of developing PN [peripheral neuropathy] (RR = 1.83). Current new users had the highest risk (RR = 2.07)
Further detail can be found in How We Can Halt The Cipro & Levaquin Catastrophe: The Worst Medication Disaster In U.S. History. This book is by an MD detailing his knowledge and research after a career of treating “floxed” patients.

---

Well, that’s all for now. There’s more, which will have to wait for another day.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Pricknick's picture

Another factor that all who are on multiple medications (polypharmacy) should take into account are drug and food interactions. Many doctors I deal with are very unaware of contradictions between multiple drugs.
I highly encourage the use of free online interaction checkers such as:
Medscape
http://reference.medscape.com/
Drugs.com
http://www.drugs.com/drug_interactions.php
Webmd.com
http://www.webmd.com/interaction-checker/

Thanks again for the post.

up
0 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Most times, Doctors prescribe the best medicines they have available for their patient's conditions.
Those I know are good people who are working their asses off, but they can't always get it right.
It's the nature of medicine. Part science, part wisdom/serendipity. Part guessing.

Yes, bigpharma sucks. I mean, it really really fucking sucks.

But a lot of times, docs are putting out fires. Go ask Dallasdoc, maybe, over at that other place, what it was like treating AIDS patients before a good cocktail of anti-HIV meds were discovered.

If you have a doctor that prescribes any medicine and they can not tell you exactly why--yes find another doctor. Now.
The doctors I know are not tied to Pharma at all. Quite the opposite actually.
Believe it or not, they try to be healers. Everyday.

up
0 users have voted.
wilderness voice's picture

Not blaming doctors at all. The problem is the scientific record they refer to is heavily corrupted. So they end up operating on bad information.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

drugs I have ever read--and I have read quite a few. I would like to enhance some of the points made in this article and add a few personal observations.
1. Publication bias and outright deception are well known to those who study not only medicinals but also medical devices. Most of the techniques are well-described in this story. Furthermore, the FDA often only requires 2 positive trials, allegedly appropriately designed and statistically correct in outcomes analysis, the hazards inflicted on unknowing doctors by cross-posting the same trial as if it were two different trials beach me evident. A typical drug efficacy report is written by multiple observers. If one trial leaves positive results, than it can be published in two different journals, with two different sets of authors, with two different titles. A conscientious physician does not have the time to thoroughly research the research--not when faced with mounds of distractors like paper (or computer) forms to be answered, utilization reviewers, patient and patient surrogates to be dealt with after the physician makes a therapeutic decision and has to explain it.
2. One statistic (sorry for absent link) is that one-third of all patients attending a tertiary hospital's Neurology clinic were undiagnosed. Not wrongly diagnosed (though that happens also) but simply undiagnosed. To some degree physicians are culpable when they prescribe drugs for uncertain indications. Therapeutic trials should be considered separately from treating undiagnosed illness--because sometimes a successful result of treatment will clinch the diagnosis (example, using anti-gout medications to treat a painful inflamed foot).
3. Like the government's heavy handed approach to whistleblowers in general, those physicians who have the temerity to report the first few incidents of adverse reactions to the powers that be are often treated with disbelief and hostility.
4. Use of online sources about medications is a double-edged sword. I appreciate the reference in this article, some of which I was unaware, but for a medically under-educated individual (which includes most lay people), delving into a drug data base is fraught with hazard. Patients often misconstrue their diagnosis (or diagnoses) and thus when trying to ascertain the risk-benefit ratio of any prescribed therapy, may be looking at the wrong comparators. Furthermore, patients frequently get drug names confused with one another (it is perhaps surprising that people do not look at the labels with enough care to even grasp the correct name of the drug prescribed). Listing a few common drug identification mistakes are digitoxin instead of digoxin and flagyl for floxin. Since more and more drugs are being pushed onto the market, the name proliferation increasingly engenders more confusion.
5. To get on the shelves of pharmacies, drugs must pass phase 3 testing, which are efficacy trials. What many people are unaware of is that there is a Phase 4 process. That process only occurs when greater numbers of people have been exposed to the target drug. For instance, the relationship between tendinitis and floxins was only realized after several years and millions of drug exposures. Again, for the reason expressed above, reporting of these delayed drug adverse reactions, although not as often as hostile as stated above, may still be a complicated, time-consuming process: what was the patient's age, gender, co-molrbities, other medication, dosage, duration of therapy, onset of symptoms post-prescription, etc.
I commend this post by wilderness voice highly and hope that he/she cross-posts it more broadly than on a primarily political site.

up
0 users have voted.

That's why people die. Because they don't belong in the body. If they were supposed to be there they'd already be there. The body can do amazing things to heal itself but Americans are to brainwashed by the scam referred to as "western medicine". Take this pill and all your troubles will disappear.

up
0 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Ravensword's picture

Or people suffering from schizophrenia or clinical depression.

You might as well put that blunt out, if you're into puffing the magic dragon. As far as I know, THC isn't produced within the human body, and therefore, by your logic, if it isn't in the human body, then it's not supposed to be there.

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

and much feared epidemic in the US, long ago. People of all ages were cut down, whole families would die in a matter of days.
This disease and so many others are now largely under control due to drugs. Drugs, surgery and aseptic technique have contributed to extended the average lifespan from 40 or so, to nearly 80 now.

No other treatment model has achieved the dramatic success of medicine.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

PriceRip's picture

          I have "intractable" hypertension, what am I supposed to do?

up
0 users have voted.
wilderness voice's picture

I am seeking other venues to make this work known. If you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. : - )

up
0 users have voted.

Modern medicine just treats the disease with drugs and doesn't ask any questions about what caused the disease in the first place. It's insanity. I know many people who are sick now and not one was asked about what they ate or any other pertinent info. It really is pathetic and the American people can't get enough of it. It's like a badge honor talking about their ilnesses , how many drugs they're taking and how many procedures they've been thru.

up
0 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

BernieOrBust's picture

I have great respect for doctors and drugs. I had a rare and difficult to diagnose (tiny) tumor on my pituitary gland. Made me sick as a dog. I'd be dead now if not for the wonders of modern medicine, and the removal of Anastasia aka the tumor!

With that said, I always do my own research on meds before ingesting them. If they don't seem safe, or worthwhile, I don't take them! My doc is cool and has a PHd in Pharmacology, so we find something else that will work for me.

Prior to becoming ill, I was totally anti all drugs, drink, gave birth to my children at home, blah, blah. I still greatly respect alternative medicine, but there is also a place for western medicine, imo.

With all that said, docs prescribe way too many drugs at the drop of a hat. It's irresponsible, and sometimes harmful! They need to take more time listening to and sorting out their patients, and less time whipping out the prescription pad.

Great essay, thanks!

up
0 users have voted.
jiordan's picture

was the side effect I had to deal with, and I didn't even know it until BCBS solved it for me by accident. I was taking a migraine medication (Maxalt) that as causing rebound headaches, so I got switched to a different medication (Frova). About six months later, half my left hand went numb. I thought it was ulnar nerve entrapment (a lot of computer work) and started doing exercises, wearing a brace, etc., but nothing worked. Talked to the doctor, she was stumped. Two months after that, BCBS took Frova off their preferred drug list and insisted I go back to Maxalt, so I said to hell with it and gave up on migraine medications entirely, deciding to go the straight pain-killer route and change my diet. Three week later, all the feeling came back in my hand (well, most--that hand still has a tendency to cramp on me in certain positions and I shudder to think of the permanent damage that could have been done if I'd stayed on Frova any longer), and when I looked up Frova, lo and behold, peripheral numbness was a symptom.

Changing my diet got rid of the migraines, I just wish I'd tried that first instead of doing the standard "give me a pill to make it stop" that seems to be the American default setting.

Lesson learned.

up
0 users have voted.

That isn't from the air. Look up epigenetics and you'll find that it isn't the genes responsible for all the sickness going around , it's the environment we put our bodies in, mostly thru the things we eat, that is killing us. Cancer is thru the roof. It's screwed up and the doctors are saying NOTHING.

up
0 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

wilderness voice's picture

That's the problem with adverse effects - they show up in ways unrelated to what we are treating. The FDA label usually lists every possible side effect under the sun and so ends up worthless. All too often we end up discovering what the real adverse effects are after the fact.

up
0 users have voted.

But I've caught too many mistakes & read too much about the drugs they prescribe. My primary doctor diagnosed me with anemia and prescribed iron & ran some tests to find out what was causing the anemia. After all the tests, he & my gyno said it was probably my extremely heavy periods & that I should have an ablation of my uterus to stop the bleeding. However, after I started taking the iron, my period stopped. The doctor still recommended the ablation, but I postponed it due to a scheduling conflict. After a couple of months of no period, I took myself off the iron slowly. Within 3 months, it was back & I reconsidered the ablation. I restarted the iron in the meanwhile, and my period went away again. I waited 6 months before stopping the iron this time, and now it has been a year with no period (I'm 53).

While looking up something else recently, I then find articles stating that low iron causes heavy periods. WHAT?!!! My heavy periods caused the anemia, which caused even heavier periods, which caused the anemia to worsen, and so on, and so on.

You really have to educate and advocate for yourself in medicine these days. Even good doctors, and I really like my gyno, don't always have all of the information about everything. There's just too much information out there for one person to memorize it all.

up
0 users have voted.

Beat Trump with Bernie!