Slashdot Mirror
Subjecting Yourself to Experimental Meds
ghostlibrary writes "Even while NIH is getting new ethics regs,
patientINFORM is being evangelized
as a way for ordinary citizens to look up experimental treatment online, in essence circumventing their doctor, and the FDA long ago tacitly approved this. /. debated Wikis in hospital. RSI fans track risky or untested procedures from the Typing Injury FAQ and Health-Hack
covers IT-related self-help medicine. Laser-eye stuff is now mainstream and doesn't need a check beyond google. Any other sites out there for those willing to dictate their own medical course? Does this mean Internet users will become test subjects more than the usual college students and elderly?"
Its pretty obvious... If nobody vols for these medications, then the results will never be determined. Once we leave the earth we goto a better place above anyway, or so a lot of people tell me. Its a good thing to test experimental drugs...
Just not on me.
Does that even remotely make any sense? Sure as hell doesn't to me...
This is just ripe for law-suits galore.
Just wait and watch, until people figure out whom to sue to get the maximum out of. And then we can see this whole thing wither away...
(Yes, I know. I'm quite cheerful on Mondays...)
My life was saved by an experiemntal drug. The doctors couldn't get my heart restarted after my third open-heart surgery via defibrillation or other methods. The anaesthesist was one of the doctors evaluating a new medication that showed promise for restarting hearts and used it on me. As you can tell, it worked.
I've also been on the bad side of experimental drugs and have suffered thru some major side-effects. It's not a great feeling when the medication you are taking to eliminate pre-ventricular contractions makes you feel like you're living underwater.
As for people volutarily subjecting themselves to experimental medications and treatment: TALK WITH YOUR DOCTOR FIRST! He knows your particular case better than any other doctor and can help you evaluate if you are a good candidate for the experimental treatment. It's a good thing that it's becoming easier to find out about available experimental treatments, but don't think it's going to be the "magic-bullet" cure until you find out more and talk with your doctor.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Last time I checked, my computer could not innoculate me.
If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).
I'm as cynical as the next guy, but how the fuck can someone challenge the publishing of information as violating the Freedom of Information Act?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
One of my favorite unknown alt.country singers, Slaid Cleaves, tells the story of his day job: lab rat for experimental medicines at a center in Austin, Texas.The rest of the story (including the lab's phone number, if you're interested) can be found at Slaid Cleaves' web site.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Why would Internet users subject themselves this type of thing more than others? If we have the ability to find out about the experimental meds online, we'd know better what we were dealing with, and know enough not to subject ourselves unnecessarily.
I, for one, welcome our new medically enhanced overlords.
How is gathering infromation on experimental treatments "circumventing their doctor"? It seems to me that it is better to be informed about potential or experimental treatments for an ailment you are suffering from - if you are interested, bring it up with your doctor. And no, that doesn't mean you should TELL your doctor you want this or that treatment; the idea is to inform yourself, not attempt to replace the years of training and practice a doctor has. Seems like a non-issue to me.
After typing all day every day for, hmm, decades now my finger joints get painful. I've found that glucosamine and chondroitin supplements work wonders. They take a couple of days to kick in but no pain. IIRC they act by improving the cushioning the joint better and allowing it to heal.
Deleted
In general, I really like this sort of development. It is the way the alternative health scene has worked for years (although, of course, only recently through the internet). There is a lot to be said for anecdotal evidence - but of course it is also dangerous. Many people feel under or mal-served by the medical establishment. Why not do one's best to bypass it?
Personally, I have a strong science background so I feel slightly confident about investigating remedies on my own. I do fear for people with poor educations though. That's one thing that the web is good for - it helps people self-educate.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
...until you actually try them on yourself. I've seen many drugs have outcomes dependent on the individual. All the epidemiological tests in the world say nothing about how a drug will affect you. I say drop all the federal controls and prescriptions. Anyone should be able to do their own research, and walk into any pharmacy to get what they want. The current system consolidates status quo and concentrates power in the hands of multinationals and litigation-phobic doctors. The power to control our own medical destiny belongs with the individual, along with all the responsibility. The FDA control of medicine does not give us a world safe from risk, so why have it. I suspect the average heroin addict has as good a track record as those that legally prescribe. From AIDS and cancer patients waiting futilely for hope denied, to old-age pensioners going to Canada to get cheaper drugs, to the war on drugs that might cause pleasure, federal control of medicine has been an abject failure. I'd rather have informed individuals in total control.
...and the FDA long ago the tacitly approved this. /. debated...
/. abbreviation?
Can we please refrain from starting sentences with the
Dr. - My 4 years of med school, 3 years of residency, and continuously studying CME have led me to believe that the experimental treatment you are requesting is too risky.
/. so it must be good....
patient: - But I read about it on
Doctors are like help desk technicians - you come to them with a problem, they have tests they can perform, and in the end they try to help you fix whatever's ailing you. But also like a tech, doctors are not always perfect - they have to make educated guesses about the problem and can definitely make mistakes. (The analogy continues, but it's important to realize the difference in necessary education before a person becomes a doctor. The risks of a PC crash are nothing compared to an allergic reaction that results in death.)
Now just like calling a computer tech, your visit to the doctor may not be that fruitful. It is possible that you will discover something your physician doesn't - after all, it's your body. In many cases, the doctor may not be willing to spend hours of research time finding a possible treatment for you. It's not surprising that you're willing to spend those hours on Google or other resources.
What I'd suggest is that you do your research and present your findings to your doctor. Work with him or her to approach these findings from an objective (try) standpoint and leave your emotions at the door. If your doctor will not work with you and you believe that one of these treatments may be successful, find another doctor who will be more receptive.
A few months ago, I went to the doctor with what I feared to be bronchitis or pneumonia. He told me I had the flu and prescribed a couple of things. I was skeptical of his anti-viral Rx, and when I went to get them filled the pharmacist told me that these drugs were only supposed to be prescribed on the first or second day of symptoms (I was in my fourth). I felt like the doctor (not my regular, but someone filling in) just gave me something to get me to leave. I did some research, and sure enough, there was no reason he should have prescribed those pills other than to mollify me.
Like telling a user "run a defrag."
I've tried plenty in my time...didn't know you could get paid for doing so...
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I volunteered as a test subject a couple of years ago, several times. Partly because of the money (though you didn't get that much), but also, I guess, for the thrill of it (I wouldn't do it today).
Most of the experiments were totally harmless, but I have a couple of good horror stories. One experiment was a medicine for lowering blood pressure. It worked let me tell you, I almost passed out when running up some stairs the second day, and I'm normally fairly fit. It also contained beta-blockers, which turned out to give me horrible nightmares. Serveral nights I dreamt of being paralyzed, drowning while being tied up, buried alive etc. When waking up from the nightmares I was panicking, but I had problems moving. My body felt sluggish, and my heart was punding very hard but slow, though it *felt* like it should be racing.
A lasting positive effects of the experiments was that I lost my phobia of needles and blood after giving blood samples once every hour for 24 hours.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
On the news in England: a man afflicted with a degenerative brain condition has won a court ruling last year that will force doctors to give him water and food even if he cannot ask for it possibly a reaction to the then-ongoing Schiavo case in the US. Doctors are protesting that this "undamentally altered the nature of doctor / patient relationships and was not in the best interests of the patient."
I have not read the ruling, but I think it should be self-evident that if this guy wants to be sustained even when he can't ask for it, this should be done.
Doctors claim the ruling means they "would have to provide treatment which they knew would be of no benefit or could even be harmful", which is why I am making the post here. Indeed patients should not be able to force any particular doctor to give them treatment that, in his judgement, is medically unnecceary. Of course, they should be free to find a doctor who agrees with their choice of treatment. Of course, this can be bad for them, as the heading story points out, but it is their problem.
That said, I fail to see how giving someone food and water can be "harmful". It may be "of no benefit" only to the extent that the person's life is of no benefit, which is not for the doctor to judge especially when the patient has spoken on the matter.
- Clinic research is not statistically adequate: testing a medication on 10,000 people will not catch adverse side effects that kill 1-in-20,000 (e.g., kill 1,500 per year when 30 million peapl take the drug). Aspirin given to millions of children for more than 100 years before discovering Reyes syndrome.
- Genetic variations: People aren't genetically uniform. A drug that tests safe and effective on Chinese patients may kill Caucasians (and the Chinese and Caucasians are hardly genetically uniform). For childhood leukimia, there are currently 3 different drugs and they use genetic testing to determine which one to use (the wrong one is lethal).
- Environmental factors: The other substances that you ingest affect drug behavior. Two different drugs may be metabolized via that same pathway and thus if you take both, it slows the the processing of the drug (may increase or decrease the drug's effects). Foods also affect the results. For example., grapefruit deactivates certain digestive enzymes that otherwise limit absorption of some drugs (e.g., you get a higher dose of the medicine if you take it with grapefruit juice).
The point is that there's rarely enough data and too many genetic and environmental variations to judge all the effects. No medicine is ever proven safe. At best, you can create statistical confidence estimates on the likelihood of adverse reactions, but the genetic and environmental factors make these hard to do.Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I suppose if there's an experimental drug out there that needs testing and it's aimed at my particular affliction/malady, I'm game for it if the docs can't do much for it with exhisting medicine or techniques. [And the side effects aren't worst than the disease--such as 'anal leakage'].
But, then again, there ain't no cure for the summertime blues.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Next time your in a doctor's office, ask to see their drug indications guide.
r aud/
You should be given a thick manual with pages of fine print on all the available drugs and the interactions/warnings of each.
The scary part is that it will be choked full of advertising.
For example; notice the thick tabbed glossy insert for "Viagra".
This may not be as fraudulent as this:
http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-f
However, it does beg the question, "What is a doctor?"
If they are being swayed by advertising and free samples, than they are nothing more than a sales agent.
That be said, there are no doubt a class of doctors who see beyond this garbage and choose to educate themselves to offer an unbiased and professional service for their clients.
Good on ya, if you have found the later, otherwise you might as well just subject yourself to experimental meds.
could this represent a fundamental shift of information away from the educated and priveledged to the masses via the internet and other electronic media?
i mean, i know that's what's been happening with it, but when it comes to the point where there are serious social ramifications, shouldn't analyze this further for lasting social effects before just "going for it"? or should we, on the other hand, just embrace the change and see what happens?
So when did we change from prisoners and the military. I know a WWII & Korean War veteran who claims he was subjected to radiation to "test it's effects".
....(while exceedingly rare) if your erection lasts for longer than four hours, call your doctor.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
[ Disclaimer: I come from a family of MDs, so am probably unusually sympathetic to doctors ]
There is a general problem with medicine in the US, and this story is part of it. The medical system considers us "patients" who are to be taken care of. But the insurance system considers us "customers", who have to manage our own health care, and figure out how it will be paid for.
Here's my latest example: I have good reason to suspect I have high LP-a, a condition that can be detected with a simple, inexpensive blood test. The results are easy to interpret, but the test is not standard procedure, especially for someone my age (young).
The local hospital does the test for $30. My insurance won't cover this test, so it is going to be out of pocket for me. BUT, the hospital won't do the test without a doctor's prescription (read: permission). They say this is so that it gets "billed to your insurance" correctly (even when I say that I am paying out of pocket).
I can go find some doctor (I don't have a regular doctor), pay a few hundred dollars (insurance won't cover this visit), and explain in gory detail why I want this specific test, hope that they don't think I am kook and give me the prescription. Then I pay the $30.
The kicker is that the hospital still won't give me the results. Instead, they will only send them to the doctor, requiring a second visit, and more money I don't have.
So how does this make sense:
- A test is being done on me
- But doctor must consent (no mention anywhere of my own consent, by the way)
- The results, in medical file, are kept hidden from me
- And I am expected to pay for the whole thing
- Yet can not influence any of the process
presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude driving, stealing, and/or fighting while on crack, PCP, or Alcohol or any other molecule etc.).
Remember: Drugs don't kill people. People kill people.
Some of us, like me, have no insurance. This doesn't just mean no doctor visits, but no doctor. Period.
I'm all for people consuming anything and everything they want -- crack, heroin, asperin, ibuprofen, cialis, PCP, sugar, caffeine, water -- whatever you want.
I'd rather try an experimental drug, rather than pay out the nose for what little sick-care I can afford. Hopefully, it'll be something I like.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Everyone taking illegal drugs is subjecting themself to experimental medicine. They're all generating vast amounts of effects data, consumed almost exclusively by hobbyists. Until that data is processed, and the drugs are available under consistent quality control, the experiment continues.
On the flip side, lots of newer drugs delivered to the US market since Reagan "streamlined" the FDA are still experimental. Because they haven't processed the effects data, or ignored some less flattering results, the drugs are still experimental.
By some measures, experimental drugs are America's national pasttime.
--
make install -not war
I have a rare form of cancer for which I am about 30 years younger than the average person with this cancer. I don't expect my doctor to know much about carcinoid because there are so few of us (he has only treated about half a dozen people with carcinoid).
Therefore, I feel it is my job to research as much as possible, find experts in carcinoid with which to consult and the latest paper to forward on to my current doc. Medicine should be a cooperative venture between doctor and patient, never just one or the other.
--Ron
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
Ketamine is not intended for human consumption, therefore your comment is a non-sequiter. Find me one vet who will tell me otherwise and I will retract this statement.
I did a few Pharmaco studies -- one complete, one where IIRC I was a standby, and turned out not to be needed.
It wasn't too bad: I've described it before as a mix of summer camp, hospital, insane asylum, and low-security prison. (These last three, I guess could be usefully combined.)
The biggest problem is that I failed to think as I should have about hydration: you need to drink enough water if you're going to have a fair amount of liquid extracted through holes in your arms; at one point, after various unsuccessful stabs at my arms, the doctor (who was a bit arrogant and standoffish, but certainly not terrible) gave me a shunt, so I didn't have to get stuck any more, and advised me to drink water so I'd have more to give, so to speak.
I got more schoolwork done there than I probably did on any other weekends, which was good, because that's not something I was winning any awards for. The food was bland but edible; the only thing I didn't eat was the mayo-containing coleslaw. Entertainment was scarce -- pool, television, a bank of phones -- but there was a computer room, and I brought books.
It's regimented and strange -- but for a couple of weekends, I got iirc $600, and an understanding of the place / system, and I don't regret it. Maybe I'll do it again sometime, out of interest / curiosity at how it's changed in the last decade than anything else.
timothy
p.s. There are lots of rumors about the studies there, including the fabled "heart stopper" where they give you $40,000 to stop and then re-start your heart. Likewise, the "lose a toe" one, where they amputate a toe to test some anti-bleeding drug. I dunno about the veracity of either, but I know when I laughingly told my brother about the heart-stopping one, he paused and asked "Really? 40 thousand?" very thoughtfully.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Commercials like these...
"....Most comon side effects include stomach ache, vomiting, diareah, abdominal cramps, and loose stool. Doctors advise...." bla bla bla
Also you can read here.
What people don't understand, is that there has to be a double-blind test done on every medicine that will be produced by the medical industry. If it is not the medical industry that's putting it out, then they have to tell you about all of these side effects. Testing in such ways is for the good of the economy, not the humanity.
Misinformation on the internet can be very dangerous. Things like the Typing Injury FAQ are probably more harmful than good. RSI tends to be more of a psychosomatic issue. Sites like the Typing Injury FAQ reinforce the false idea that it is physical problem.
I say this both from experiencing it for myself and years of research into "RSI" (while I had the symptoms of). The only thing that ever made sense and was able to cure me was John E. Sarno's book "Mindbody Prescription." Do a Google search for "sarno tms" for more info (though the link above on the Harvard site is the best starting point to understand what he is talking about).
Take random health information on the internet with a grain of salt, especially since it can cause you to exhibit psychosomatic problems if you are prone to it (which more people are than you would think).
I know this is a controversial idea, but please at least read all of the document I linked to and give it a chance.
Every day laypeople put drugs in their bodies, some of which have been later determined to be harmful, often not by research performed by doctors, but simply by observations over time. Note also I specifically stated "mentally fit", by which it is implied the person has some understanding of what they are doing, and the risks involved. This really isn't that radical, there have been many cases whereby rational individuals simply cannot afford to wait for the FDA.
And then one day she got a phone call: "Stop taking that medicine. Don't take the next pill. Go see your doctor immediately." One of the other patients had died from a side effect of the medication.
But for my mother, it was a real miracle drug. It has put her arthritis in remission for 10-15 years - and that is unheard of in the world of arthritis treatment.
Fen-phen comes to mind as another example. Playing games with stuff that hasn't been well studied may have great benefits, or serious consequences, or both. If the FDA hasn't done due diligence (or if you don't trust the FDA), then you'd better do your homework like your life depends on it. Don't just look for the reports of how wonderful the results can be - look for how bad the downside can be.
As far as I know, cocaine is still legal for use as a local anesthic in mouth and throat surgeries. Tip for young /.'ers: Ask for it when you have your wisdom teeth/tonsils out.
I get PVCs sometimes too, if I get really dehydrated or stressed (long periods w/o sleep, etc). Were these related to your heart failure? What medication did you try for them? A beta blocker? Thanks. (sorry, I don't see a way to PM/email)
Microsoft Word is the obvious choice for this. As you know, Word's grammar check is extremely accurate. ;-)
I have been subjecting myself to drug experementaion on and off for years with a certain weed indigenous to just about any place with dirt. And can report only one bad side effect. I don't remember her name, but she keyed my car and took a bunch of my CD's. Other than that I'd say I do quite well and my IQ has always tested well above average. I mean, come on, I used the word "Indigenous". That means I'm smart. And if I do something that makes me seem stupid I can always just say, "Oh sorry, I'm pretty high right now." It's a win/win situ...it's um...what were we talking about again?
Turk: Let's play Steak. J.D.: What? Turk: Steak. The 1st person to finish their steak is the winner of Steak. -Scrubs
Experimental drugs mebbe one day Ill wake up finding that when I get real angry my skin turns green, muscle mass will increase 50 fold, and I become relatively invulnerable.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
I read the story and was hoping that you were misrepresenting it. You weren't. However, to play devil's advocate, the doctor's never said "harmful to the patient". They merely said "harmful". When referring explicitly to the patient (e.g., "not in the best interests of the patient"), the statements (in the story, at least) were all somewhat neutral. I.e., the statements never said the treatment was actually bad for the patient, just not "best". (Obviously the best treatment would be a cure.) One could argue that providing him nutrition and water would be using resources that would be better used on patients that were not brain dead.
Note that I said "one could argue", not that I would argue that point. I agree with you completely that the doctors in this story seem to have lost their own mental competency.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Since they stopped testing on animals, a guy like me can really clean up!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
There seems to be a whole branch of the pharmaceutical industry that is interested in deriving new medications to substitute for older tried-and-true medications, because the older meds often demonstrate "positive side effects" that we somehow view as undesirable.
What we're ignoring is that while the newer medications may eliminate the positive side effects (which may be addictive, or encourage abuse of medications, etc), these are not just vanishing; they're often being replaced by negative and potentially dangerous side effects.
From my own dealings with the medical industry, I present several examples:
The list can go on: Ultram invented for pain in lieu of the opioids (despite the fact that it's still very addictive), Ambien invented for inducing sleep instead of barbiturates and benzodiazepines (because it was, and still is assumed to be safer - ignoring the fact that it can and often does cause dramatic hallucinations at standard prescribed doses).
Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine. When I need to be sedated, give me some Valium. Don't try to haul this new, safer, poorly researched crap on me. Opiates, for example, have been in use for hundreds or thousands of years, and are well understood. I'd be much more likely to put my faith and comfort in them than some experimental drug that's but a couple years old.
Here is the original article:
Let me suggest this as a better rewrite:
I think this is a bit clearer. A general word of advice -- try to put what an article is about in the first clause of the first sentence if possible
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Every person already has access to National Library of Medicine's PubMed system that enables them to identify all research publications. And everyone already has access to the National Library of Medicine's ClinicalTrials.gov database. Given the hodgepodge of advice and crappola appearing all over the Web encouraging people to eat untested substances, drink urine, shoot up just about everything in order to cure themselves, please tell me why anyone would be opposed to access to information carefully organized, peer-reviewed research and publications. You must remember that, until the Internet showed up, most medical libraries were closed to the public, and often even to nurses, and all information of any consequence had to come via a doctor. Their role as the guardians of knowledge is eroding as people are encouraged to assume a more active role in their own health decision making. If you have a problem with this, well, you can still just go to your doctor. But some of us might want a few alternatives.
If you know so much about medications, why don't you just buy them yourself?
There's ONE good reason to be a lab rat. Outsourced geek. When you can make at least $3000 for four days in the lab. While only a little over $1000 working at McD's for a month. Guess which one people will pick.
Make your tests bigger!
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Whoever described doctors as "techs" was right on. Anyone who isn't actively involved in their own treatment is being absoutely careless. I decided this years ago, but it came crashing home when I got misdiagnosed by 3 doctors who said I had asthma based on very sketchy evidence. I was promptly put on a steroid inhaler for daily treatment and an albuterol inhaler for emergencies.
Now, the reason I went to 3 other doctors (the 4th being the one who correctly diagnosed my problem), is that the albuterol (a stimulant that opens the airways) was making my attacks WORSE, not better. But the second and third doctor said it was all in my head and to stick with it.
It turns out I was actually having panic attacks. So the last thing I really needed was to be sending a stimulant directly into my lungs which is just shy of injecting one right into your veins. I actually stopped taking the albuterol shortly after the second idiot doctor and just kept going back saying the same thing until I finally got a doctor who was willing to actually check if I really had asthma.
Now this is just a single example, but it's also not the first misdiagnosis I've had. I've been prescribed antibiotics for flu. I've been told I had food poisoning when I didn't.
There are some good doctors out there. There are a number of really, really, bad doctors out there. And most doctors, good or bad, are rarely willing to take the time to really investigate their patients' problems these days. You simply can't count on doctors to do the homework on your condition. Someone should be doing the homework. The doctor can run tests, but what if they're not running the right tests? You need to do at least some homework and be willing to make suggestions to your doctor. And if that bugs your doctor, find a new one.
I know we can't all get medical degrees and it should be the doctors' job to figure all this crap out, but the fact is with HMOs and the like, doctors aren't doing their jobs. They're working on a factory line and getting through as many patients as they can as quickly as they can.
This whole story is crazy - there is a website which you can use to find any ongoing study in the US. If you want experimental medicine, look it up and find the nearest place with a participating doc.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Unfortunately, doctors look at people who know what they need or want as drug abusers.
Example: Last year, I had such a bad sore throat, that I ended up in the ER and got prednisone and vicodin for pain. Since it was a viral infection, I was not given antibiotics. When I returned to my hometown, I ran out of pain meds and went to my local ER to request more. When I mentioned Vicodin, I was sent out with nothing more than instructions to gargle salt water.
Doctors seem to know all and patients know nothing. Instructing your doctor that his chosen method of treatment is not the best for you never goes over well. At one time, I had an older doctor who was willing to listen to my suggestions, and I always left with a treatment plan that worked. He has since passed away, and my new doctor, while he means well, doesn't work the same way. Poor Blue Cross had to pay for me to go back four or five times when I was having recurring migraines, which went away just fine with a low dose of oxycodone because he refused to prescribe it. I now use Zomig for them, and tried various other tryptamine drugs with not-too-fun side effects before finally getting this. It still isn't as effective as an opioid, but what can I do?
Unfortunately, doctors look at people who know what they need or want as drug abusers.
That's a *very* good point. I still have a prescription for Xanax to take as needed (which is rare), and when I go to fill it and hand them my old prescription bottle (with my name, the drug name, and the dose on it), if I mention "alprazolam", I'm typically turned down, but if I look confused and say, "My old doctor gave me this," I'm pretty much instantly written off a refill.
Doctors are like help desk technicians - you come to them with a problem, they have tests they can perform, and in the end they try to help you fix whatever's ailing you.
Doctors are like little boys with two hammers. In the end they try to help you... by using the two tools they learned about in medical school: Drugs and Surgery. Sure, they learned a little bit about other topics, but the vast majority of their focus is on perscribing drugs and surgery.
What else would you expect from a profession that is composed of the ideological heirs of bloodletters & mercury salvers?
In a free market, if a profession becomes obsolete, it withers away to become a quaint footnote in a history text. In the united states, we have lobbyists to prevent that from happening to well-connected groups. Just make your new, more effective competition "illegal". Consider:
100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom
Dr. Andrew Still 'discovered' his manipulation techniques after he was powerless to prevent several of his children from dying from... meningitis, iirc. He started a healing discipline called 'Osteopathy', and set out to teach others his techniques. Establishment doctors chased him out of town after town (*1) - until he finally found a place to stay and teach.
The real difference between Osteopathy and Allopathy is between their health models. An allopath (99% of M.D.s) believes that a body's symptoms are the problem, and gives his patients substances which counteract the symptom. An osteopath believes that a body is self-regulating and self-healing, so long as everything needed is in place. So, an osteopath's (*2) goal is to remove all a body's impediments to healing. A core tenet of Osteopathy is that Structure and Function are interrelated - hence the importance of applying appropriate adjustments to the body's structure (spine, bones, muscles and tendons) to a body that is not functioning properly.
The difference in treatment outcomes (between Allopathy and Osteopathy) is startling. Quoting from the Cranial Academy website:
Now imagine you're in a profession that's just been made obsolete. Is it easier to start over and learn to become effective, or to lobby the legislatures to make "licensed" members of your profession the only group who can do certain procedures ("diagnose", "perscribe", perform surgery, etc)? Guess which one won out.
And so, I agree with you - Doctors really are like help desk technicians. They're fine doing what they're trained to do (perscribe drugs), but if a problem comes up that's outside the scope of their training, they're worthless, and you'll get put onto the magical medical rollercoaster, going from specialist to specialist to specialist, never getting satisfactory result. It's like going to the helpdesk with a problem, and all they ever tell you to do is "reboot the computer".
I've gotten off the rollercoaster and have taken charge of my own health. I seek out qualified consultants when neede
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Insurance, isn't. Even with insurance, a doctor's appointment is months away. After you visit the doctor, and he says that you need x procedure, s/he schedules you for another doctor -- a month away.
In the case of having a tooth absess, this doesn't cut it, and you end-up at the emergency-room, waiting for 12 hours for a doctor to see you, and none of that is covered by insurance.
Me, I don't have insurance. I not get sick, or take too much crack at one time, and then I don't need to see a doctor. Why have insurance, when the entire reason of having insurance is to cover medical costs -- and the insurance system is geared towards making sure that medical costs are not covered by the insurance companies?
They can all screw themselves. If I get in a horrible auto (or systems administrative) accident, and end-up at the emergency room, I'll pay the same whether or not I have insurance -- an arm and a leg.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
While it might not apply to your single-test request, Medical Tourism might help. In your case, for less than the total cost you mention you might be able to fly or drive to a nearby country and get the same test, but in a way that you own the results. More commonly, medical tourism is used to either get an extensive set of medical tests done for a fraction of the U.S. cost (if you could get your HMO to authorize the set in the first place), or to get specific surgeries or dental procedures done for far less than the U.S. cost.
The well-known m.t. hospitals have the same equipment and safety standards as U.S. hospitals, but much cheaper prices. Plus you get your own data and the hospital room is like a resort hotel, sometimes with beach nearby.
As examples, a friend needed $20,000 worth of dental work done (as estimated by U.S. dentists). His total cost was less than $5,000 in Costa Rica (including plane tix: Costa Rica is known for dental m.t.), plus he got some ecotourism time in the rain forests. Several of the m.t. hospitals in Thailand and elsewhere have had their business skyrocket after 2001: families who used to visit the U.S. for their yearly checkups (Mayo clinic or similar) aren't being allowed into the U.S. (i.e. a drop of 40% from Middle Eastern countries. Stop the most U.S. friendly people in these countries from seeing their long-term doctors and keep their money away from U.S. businesses: great PR and great economic planning, with no appreciable safety benefits. ).
M.T. also allows you to truthfully say you're going off for a vacation when you're going to get elective surgery like liposuction or plastic surgery done. On your return you'll get "Hey, you look better...nice tan."
After serving eight years in the military and getting close to those that know, I learned that there are many times when untested / experimental vaccines are given to our troops without their knowledge. Most never cause problems, but there was speculation that a combo of these vaccines may have contributed to Gulf War Syndrome. Not fact, but reasonable speculation.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
I'll skip the Opiates, as they make me sick, but as far as anxiolytics hook me up with a benzo tranq ;)
Israeli doctors experimented on children, is an article I found on The daily grail today by the Guardian Unlimited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1481 159,00.html
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead. ~ Laurel and Hardy
Advertising can work indirectly (subconsciously if your prefer) I'm afraid the most educated, unbiased, professional doctors still get influenced by product placement on prof magazine, pen&pencils, magnets, "educational materials and seminars, and all the other stuff that drug companies provide. I'm afraid deliberately searching for a good doctor is no longer enough. The medical/pharmaceutical industry has to be changed, through legislation or other means. What worries me is so many doctors are confident they can't be influenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
having a third arm helps get those hard to reach areas when you have an itch.
Makes masturbating while surfing the intarwebs easier as well.
Well, about a year ago, I was bitten in the head by a tick. Developed joint pain, characteristic rashes in several places on my body, headaches, frequent bouts of feeling like shite, wierd urinary issues, etc. In short, all the symptoms of Lyme Disease.
... stop reading so much and worrying about your health. The fact that antibiotics helped you is probably just the placebo effect." (stupid fucktard, as if it isn't known that joint pain is often caused by bacterial infections.)
Went to my usual doc; he tested me for it using the (quite flawed) ELISA test. Came back negative and all other bloodwork was fine. Two months later, I has a bad case of sinusitis, and was given an antibiotic which just happened to be effective against Lyme.
After experiencing a worsening of symptoms (known as a Herxheimer reaction) on the third day of treatment, I started feeling much better. Joint and back pain was reduced almost to zero, headaches were gone for the first time in 10 months or so.
Of course, the doctor said: "you can't possibly have Lyme, you tested negative for it." I told him that I read that the test is not 100% accurate and the NJ state health depertment had even advised doctors not to use it as the sole diagnostic criterion. "Well,
So far, after 10 days of that antibiotic (Omnicef) and a week more of self-administered amoxicillin, my symptoms are 90% gone, but since 2 and a half weeks of antibiotics isn't enough to treat Lyme, they'll undoubtedly come back.
Fortunately, I was given the name of a good specialist, whom I'm seeing in two weeks, and there is still a faint mark from one of the rashes, so there is evidence that I was infected. I suppose that if I were desperate, I could always go to Mexico and get antibiotics or order them through a pharmacy site like Master's Marketing, which is reputable but isn't too particular about prescriptions for non-narcotic drugs.
-b.
Informed consent as practised by my two physicians seems to underscore knowledge and concern on their part. While there are processes of informed consent that detail a patient's understanding and consent, there is also, a modus operandi on the part of concerned practioners that brings with it an effort to make sure a patient is well informed and consentual before a course of medication is undertaken. My experience is, if your physicians talks of informed consent and walks you through a process of understanding, then, it's likely you're in a position to reach an informed decision. If OTOH your physician merely says, to the effect, I prescribing X, take it, then, I'd look for another doctor.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I'd like to sign up methyldioxymethamphetamine testing? Anyone have a link?
Physians have a secret monopoly organisation and can do whatever they please, declare sane people insane without right of apeal, etc. It happened over and over again in Russia, the Americas and other places.
It is high time for some healthy competition. Power to the people! When the revolution comes, evil physicians wont be spared!
Posting on slashdot doesn't count as a successful Turing test, ye mechanical automaton!
Seriously, it's good to see things like that work. I would say that we need a better, more permissive system for experimental drugs, one where they are clearly labelled as such. Steps would have to be taken to avoid something being labelled "experimental" indefinitely to dodge lawsuits, etc.... but it ticks me off to see Europe have a lifesaving technology for half a decade before it's allowed over here.
Approved meds are dangerous enough, frequently their future shortcomings in commercial used are early apparent to intelligent, OBJECTIVE observers who examine both the story and the data, and then apply everyday statistics (real odds not promises of guarantees), not just P=0.005 (hides a lot of sins and they aren't going to publish the big ones, something like only 1/5 or less or the studies are published). ie Vioxx, Baycol, most surgeries etc,etc are only the tip of a dirty iceberg. If you are thinking about something serious, dangerous and/or expensive, think about the merits of "alternative medicine" or first see a orthomolecular naturopathic doctor with perhaps a ND degree from a certified (4 yr) university. They often have cheaper, less toxic and more effective protocols with longer track records than the latest in industrial junk "meds" advertised. (not an advert, I'm a research engineer) Two easy favs: doctoryourself.com and lef.org
Hi, there.
;)
I was doing it only to get money, not to get experimental medicine per se; the experiments at Pharmaco (at least the ones I've ever considered) are Phase II clinical trials, investigating in part the absorption rates of the medicines under study.
I never gave much credence to the nuttier stories about heart stoppage etc, I just consider them part of a funny corner of Austin culture
Tim
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
"An allopath believes that a body's symptoms are the problem, and gives his patients substances which counteract the symptom"
This is very dumb. How do you know you are sick? Symptoms. So no symptoms, no sickness. You can make some argument that the realy underlying cause of the symptoms is something else. But, if the symptoms are gone permanently, that is called cured.
Also, supposedly there was a super treatment that took survivability from 40% to 99% during the great flu epidemic and nobody noticed this? I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you...
Why does this shit get modded up on slashdot? This is just like creationism: totally irrational belief which falls flat on its face when analyzed logically in SO MANY WAYS that enumerating them seems a waste of time. If you somehow fail to see that this is bullshit you haven't thought about it.
I was saved from having to have a major operation by chiropracty. The operation would have been to fix scoliosis. My doctor said there was no alternative to the operation.
So, I have every reason to be sympathetic to your viewpoint. But even so everything you say is starry eyed bullshit. I'm sorry to be rude about it but the sooner you stop believing this crap the better off you will be.
You know you've hit a nerve when you get such a spasmodic response. What's funny is that I bet you're the type who'll come around in a year or two or three. :)
You can make some argument that the realy underlying cause of the symptoms is something else.
That is what I meant to say.
But, if the symptoms are gone permanently, that is called cured.
Think about all the pharmaceuticals you see advertised on T.V. How many "cure" someone of a condition, and how many just "manage" it? Or consider antibiotic therapy. Why has a person's immunity declined to such a degree that their body needs help?
And what if person A has condition B because they don't get enough of Nutrient C in their diet? Pharmaceutical D may manage condition B such that all symptoms of said condition disappear. And suppose the list of symptoms that Nutrient C deficiency only start with symptom B. As time goes by and the deficiency gets worse, symptoms E, F, G and H develop (over a period of years). So, You can either address Nutrient Deficiency C at the start, or take Pharmaceutical D. But if you never address the real cause of the problem, pretty soon you're taking pills for all those other symptoms too. Until finally the body is weakened to such a state where it develops cancer and dies.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Just one more permutation of natural selection. Except in Kansas, of course. Of course it should be obvious that entry into any of these NIH/NCI trials IS under the supervision of a physician. The difficulty is that they usually don't know you like your usual doc, and therefore the trial could be contraindicated and/or simply dangerous. But hey, the pharmaceutical industry found that circumventing your usual doctor is very effective. Why? Only because gullible people everywhere signed on. Bottom line, predators don't exist without prey. In the words of Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, "Let Us Prey." Gives a whole new meaning to it, doesn't it?
Faith-based Government: Let Us Prey.
Its for terminally ill people, you jerk. Back before you had developed your vocabulary (in the 90's) they had this huge debate about the ethical consequences of the unequitable distribution of access to Phase I-III trials. Was it right that rural cancer patients had no chance of trying the new experimental drug that might shield them from their leukemia death sentence? By the time the drug comes to mark, 7 years later, they will certainly be dead.
I know it looks vaguely like yet another corporate scam to run tests on the little people, but it really isn't. It's a way for the little people to decide what they want. It is an intellegent decision: it says that you can't go out an advertise your product to the masses until it has been shown to be safe, but people can choose to come to you and request it. Freedom and safety.
I jus get Hiiigh
Live Organ Transplants sketch from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Basically, coccaine was outlawed because of blacks, marihauna because of Mexicans and opium because of the Chinese. Extacy & mushrooms were outlawed because party goers and hippies were having too much fun. etc etc etc ad infinitum
Morphine and Heroin still have medical uses (heroin is just repackaged morphine. 3x as strong) and extacy is experiencing a comeback as psychiatrists reevaluate its usefulness.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I looked at a couple of the carcinoid sites bc I had never heard of carcinoid before. It looks like there is good treatment for it and you have a good chance. Good luck!
PETA would rather experimentation be done on impoverished humans than on animals first.
You perfectly summed up the reasons why many (including me) now practice evidence based medicine, and only prescribe new drugs when there's a solid file to back them up. Call me conservative - that's what I am.
Most of the drugs available are useless - not that they aren't effecient, but because they are more efficients, best known and cheaper drugs already available.
The WHO "essential drugs" pharmacopoiea is an excellent basis to get started to practice this kind of efficient, bare, no thrills, medicine
In France, prescrire.org gives this kind of drug informations. There're many other similar independant drug information bulletins in other countries.
Guylhem
This was obviously a bacterial infection from something that I ingested. Yay. So I walked into a pharmacy and despite the language barrier, 2 minutes and 2 dollars later, I had a run of Cipro. Bye bye shits.
In the US, I would have had to make an apointment with my doctor. Take time off work to go sit in his fucking waiting room when I should have been billing my client, shit into a cardboard box so he can test my shit to see that I do, indeed, have the shits. Then he would prescribe Cipro and I would have to take more time off work to stand in line at the fucking pharmacy in the fucking grocery store so I can get the actual Cipro when I should have been billing my client. There would have been a $15 copay on the doctor's visit and another $20 copay for the Cipro.
And we wonder why healthcare is so expensive here? Personally, I like the 2 minutes and $2 model better than the $35 and 3 hours out of my day model.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
"Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine."
Ahh, yes, but we wouldn't want you to become addicted. Thank the fucking DEA. Most doctors are deathly afraid to prescribe medications that work because some become addicted. But if you need them, you don't become addicted. You tend to be really screwed if you have a high pain tolerance....
lockwood lockwood
have you any wool
yes sir yes sir
three bags FART
is a weird name