Slashdot Mirror


Those Sleeping Pills May Be Killing You

dstates writes "A recent article in in BMJ Open reports a strong association between the use of prescription sleeping pills and mortality. The study used electronic health records for 2.5 million people covered by the Geisinger Health System to find 12 thousand who had been prescribed sleeping pills and a matched set of controls. Death rates were much higher in the patients taking sleeping pills and the risk increases with age. Kudos to the authors for publishing this in an open access journal."

237 comments

  1. Did they adjust for crazy? by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Most of the people I know who take sleeping pills are not necessarily the most stable people in the world to begin with. Sorry to all you Ambien fans.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by vlm · · Score: 2

      Most of the people I know who take sleeping pills are not necessarily the most stable people in the world to begin with. Sorry to all you Ambien fans.

      Theoretically, yes. In practice I don't think so.

      find 12 thousand who had been prescribed sleeping pills and a matched set of controls

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't find anything in it to suggest they had actually done a double-blind trial, or even a half-assed blind trial, so their results are purely correlation, and not causation, despite the time they spent talking about causation. They do suggest that 'hangovers' from the drugs are a cause of traffic accidents and such, though, so they at least thought of that.

      No mention about mental stability that I saw.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering that myself - though I probably would have used "unhealthy lifestyle" instead of "crazy." Kind of like when they said there was a relation between people with good teeth and surviving cancer. Someone who cares about one aspect of their health is likely to keep on top of the others (eg: they get mammograms, prostate exams, etc).

      I do wish people would be careful about following medical journals. Knowledge may be power but bad medicine can kill as surely as any disease.

    4. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people taking prescription sleeping pills have been fighting sleep disorders for a long time, probably their entire adult lives. Getting terrible sleep for 30 or 40 years will probably increase your mortality regardless of what pills you're taking. Do the same study again only this time instead of looking at what drugs they're on, give them a sleep disorder questionnaire, drowsiness survey, and a sleep study. Then you'll have enough data that I actually care to look at your results.

    5. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2

      a double-blind trial

      In this case? Buzzword.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    6. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Entire adult life? Try since childhood.

    7. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do the same study again only this time instead of looking at what drugs they're on, give them a sleep disorder questionnaire, drowsiness survey, and a sleep study.

      Since they were looking at people who died, I think the ability to get them to answer questions would be much more interesting than what the answers would be.

    8. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as sleep goes, you are much better off doing what your grandparents did! Take a shot of brandy before bed. You will sleep... it's like nyquil.

    9. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There's no shortage of people(myself included) who don't sleep very much. A good night over the last two years for me would be 3 hours of straight sleep. Though the last week I've been sleeping 8-9 hours without a problem, mostly because I've started a new mix of pain killers and muscle relaxants.. It can be from a variety of problems though, but if they put up a request for volunteers to fill out info, they'd find them.

      For myself it's chronic pain. Protip: Don't fracture your C2 and C3 while exercising(particularly situps), though if you do call yourself damn lucky and take out lottery tickets. Sleeping becomes the least of your problems then, you usually just keep going until exhaustion hits.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by dsgrntlxmply · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "The population is mostly of low socio-economic status, having less than high school education and less than one-third are insured under the Geisinger Health Plan."

      "We were unable to control for depression, anxiety and other emotional factors because of Pennsylvania laws protecting the confidentiality of these diagnoses."

      The results of this study ought to be interpreted in light both of the socio-economics, demographics, and regional characteristics of the population studied, and of the potentially crucial categories of comorbidity that were excluded.

      My own use of zolpidem (Ambien) was during a time of an extraordinary convergence of situational stress factors. Once the stress conditions resolved, I was able to discontinue the drug.

    11. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah I had been having troubles sleeping since I was a kid and finally in the fall went to a sleep doctor. She set me up with a sleep study and found that as well as not sleeping long enough(had problems with my ceridian sleep schedule) I also had sleep apnea. I got CPAP and took some meletonin for a few months and man that was a crazy difference. It's like I had never had a good nights sleep in 20 years and all of the sudden you feel more energetic, awake and coherent.

    12. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really have no idea how medical research works, do you?

    13. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Exactly my analysis when I read the study.

      Not being able to control for key worry/emotional issues pretty much discredits blaming the drugs involved.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try since childhood.

      No thanks.

    15. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Now I will sorta have to agree on your first point but if someone does manage to get a dead person to answer questions, I for one would listen to what they had to say.

    16. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by batquux · · Score: 2

      No need. As it turns out, taking sleeping pills increases your odds of getting hit by a bus.

    17. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      so their results are purely correlation, and not causation

      Results from fully randomized double-blind trials are no less "purely correlation", although they do attempt to put a lid on investigator bias and sampling error. To go much beyond that into "causation", you'd need to identify a mechanism for the observed effects.

    18. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. When you do an experiment, i.e. purposely manipulate one variable, you establish a causal connection. Identifying and explaining the mechanism is nice, and establishes the character and directness of your causal relationship. Trials are experiments.

      Correlation comes from observational studies where you do not manipulate any variables yourself, you just look for natural or preexisting variation.

      A simplified example - if I look at a bunch of people who take sleeping pills and a bunch who don't, and measure how likely they are to die, I get a correlation (maybe) - dying and taking sleeping pills are correlated, but I don't know if dying causes people to take sleeping pills, whether sleeping pills tend to cause you to die, or whether some other factor (being crazy maybe) causes you to both take sleeping pills and die.

      If I take a bunch of random people and give some sleeping pills and others no sleeping pills, if the ones I give the pills die significantly more often then I can conclude that sleeping pills cause death (by some mechanism I don't yet know).

    19. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the ignorant non-medical-profession layman like myself, that article is hard to read, and quite long. If you can shed some light on the subject in common terms, please do so.

    20. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the people I know who take sleeping pills are not necessarily the most stable people in the world to begin with. Sorry to all you Ambien fans.

      Theoretically, yes. In practice I don't think so.

      This 'confounding by indication' is one of the biggest problems in pharmacoepidemiology. We know that people take meds because there is something wrong with them. We also suspect that taking certain meds over a long period of time is bad for you, particularly if you are already at high risk. So how can you separate those effects? A lot of statisticians spend a lot of time thinking about this, and 'adjusting for everything you can think of', propensity scoring and very tight matching of cases and controls seem to be the most often used solutions. None of these is satisfactory as they obviously don't adjust for things you can't measure. Use of instrumental variables is another possibility but there is rarely a good instrument to use.

      Ideally you would run a randomised trial of a med to check whether death rates or adverse drug reactions are higher in the group taking them, but this is impractical because often the required trial would be enormous (massively expensive and time consuming), would have to recruit many of the 'high risk' people that are the groups most at risk of excess mortality but are usually not recruited into trials, and could only really examine one compound at a time. Also trials exclude people taking many other medications, or with comorbid medical conditions, because these may be unsafe and would again dilute the true effects - however it is likely that unknown drug-drug interactions are the cause of a lot of the problems we think we are seeing.

      It's easy to snipe at this kind of research since its 'correlation not causation' but this really is the best that is possible at the moment when trying to answer these extremely important questions regarding drug safety. If anybody has any better ideas we'd be glad to hear them.

    21. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by wkcole · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could have answered that with a simple act of RTFA. In short: no. They had no access to their subjects' mental health records.

      I put up my screed on the weakness of the study (after seeing it covered by the Grauniad) at http://tmblr.co/ZaUL7yHBNSh0 before I saw it here, and the short version of my unassailable opinion is that it is a deeply flawed study whose data is just good enough to make a strong case for further study, undermined by the authors drawing unsupportable conclusions and pointlessly denigrating prior work and practical experience.

      And yes, hypnotics are often taken by people for whom insomnia is a secondary condition grounded in deeper problems. That doesn't mean the hypnotics are not very useful in enabling them to address the deeper problems. Speaking from personal experience, a dozen doses of Ambien taken over the space of about 2 months during the breakup of my first marriage were critical to saving my job, my ability to eventually pull out of a deep depression, and possibly as many as 4 lives. When life is slicing deep enough that you cannot sleep for days on end, the lack of sleep itself gnaws on the stripped bones of sanity.

      The main recommended use of hypnotics is for short periods in cases where insomnia itself is causing additional problems and more comprehensive treatments for underlying primary causes are too slow and/or are impeded by the effects of insomnia. Real primary insomnia that can be managed with hypnotics is pretty rare. A valid conclusion from the study is that people in that one HMO in rural PA who are being prescribed hypnotics are not getting adequate overall care, and that the inadequacy correlates with the amount of hypnotics that they are being prescribed. The authors claim (and I tend to believe them) that there is a growing consensus that CBT is a better treatment for chronic insomnia, but CBT is not something a doctor can write a scrip for and have the patient sleeping soundly that night for a few bucks. It can also uncover and address underlying issues like depression, OCD, and other cases where insomnia is really just a symptom of a more complex primary mental disorder. Of course, if you are a researcher specializing in retrospective studies of this sort who has been given access to a very large data set of patient records by an HMO, you don't have a strong incentive to write a conclusion that this HMO is controlling costs by encouraging doctors to prescribe cheap drugs instead of referring patients to expensive months-long rounds of a talk therapy, even when the best type seems to be the relatively efficient CBT.

    22. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is generally considered unethical to deny patients the best available treatment for their condition, even in the cause of Furthering Science. It is also considered unethical nowadays (wasn't so, as recently as the 1990s) to lie to your patients about their treatment.

      As a consequence, it is very difficult today to design a real "double-blind" trial of any treatment. Like it or not, this kind of large-scale statistical study may be the best form of evidence you'll ever get about some types of treatment.

    23. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The link between good dental health and surviving cancer is entirely logical. People with good teeth have their odontoblasts depositing as they should, so acidic damage is compensated for and tooth health is better.

      The odontoblasts behave well because the vitamin A, D and K2 status is good. If the vitamin status is bad, both tooth health and other things (like cancer survival) go down the toilet.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

      patients to expensive months-long rounds of a talk therapy, even when the best type seems to be the relatively efficient CBT.

      99% of your post was fine, but I have to jump down your throat for this. *Please* don't perpetuate the myth that CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) is "better" or "more efficient" than other forms of therapy. There is simply no meaningful evidence to support this claim.

      I don't necessarily dislike CBT, I think it contains some useful ideas, but it is one approach among many.

    25. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of these is satisfactory as they obviously don't adjust for things you can't measure

      Or things you won't measure for whatever convoluted reason.

      For example, back pain patients given powerful painkillers recover slower or not at all compared to no painkillers.

      Example of false reasoning: I overstrained my back doing some overambitious carpentry alone. Intense pain when sitting or standing, laying on back not so bad. Went to doc, did not accept script for painkillers because I slept on my back just fine and everything I do sitting or standing is not allowed while on pain killers anyway (can't even drive to work if I'm high on painkillers). Also doc is all nervous that I'm dr shopping for abuse meds and really chilled out and got more helpful once he realized it was perfectly clear that I was only genuinely trying to fix my back. blah blah blah. The point is the diagnosis of "back pain" is the same for me and someone who's in agony even when lying down so they need painkillers just to sleep. No great stretch of imagination that the guy in more agony than myself is more F'd up and takes longer to recover (took me only about half a week, but I've heard if you really F up your back it can be semi-permanent, months maybe). Multiply this by 15K and you get a whopper like "taking painkillers means it takes months to recover from back pain diagnosis instead of days"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    26. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      By definition there is something wrong with you if you take any medication, whether necessarily or not (i.e. there's either something physically wrong requring medication, or psychologically wrong that you feel the need for drugs). In either case, it is self evident that unwell people are more likely to die younger.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      I beg to disagree. In a randomized trial, you will never show anything other than correlation. That is what correlation is, statistically speaking. With a very well-designed trial that minimizes bias and sampling error, you may get a very high-quality correlation and justifiably conclude (with high confidence) that your independent variable was causative in some way. Remember, though, that randomization does not guarantee that potential confounding variables are controlled. It merely lessens their expected effects to an extent that depends on sample size.

      But hey - Why all the disrespect for correlation, anyway? People who should know better say things like "correlation is not causation", as if empiricism itself were the enemy. The real issue is how good your data is, and that's why we fret so much over experimental design.

    28. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Remember, though, that randomization does not guarantee that potential confounding variables are controlled."

      Proper randomization diffuses the effects of uncorrected confounders randomly through the data so any bias is eliminated. That's why it's called randomization. What you can't control, you randomize. The effect statistically is the same - you eliminate those variables as factors.

      But the critical point is that in an experiment you manipulate one variable (while controlling or randomizing all the others). You MUST manipulate a variable to show a causal relationship, and experimental trials do this. Observational trials do not, and so can only show correlation. Experiments DO show causation.

      Correlation isn't bad. Finding a correlation narrows things down to three possible causal relationships - A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B, and one of those relationships is often ridiculous. People who say things like "correlation is not causation" usually don't understand this. BUT, they are correct, the only way to show a causal relationship is with an actual experiment.

    29. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a reasonable section on this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Determining_causation

      Experiments do establish the confidence of a causal relationship, and that confidence can be made arbitrarily close to one (or zero). Although you might argue, as does Hume, that it's philosophically impossible to actually observe causation with complete confidence, the same argument can be made for ANY observation, of anything.

    30. Re:Did they adjust for crazy? by GNULinuxGuy · · Score: 1

      Just don't take more than 1 or 2 shots, because then it's actually working against you. :)

      --
      Earn Cash and Prizes, and get free stuff!
  2. Correllation != Causation by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people taking the medications might be dying sooner because they have insomnia which is not fixed by sleeping pills easily. The study should not compare with the general populace since they are, by definition, better sleepers than the group that isn't able to get good sleep.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Correllation != Causation by pclminion · · Score: 1

      They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?

    2. Re:Correllation != Causation by mystikkman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo, this is like comparing the death rates of people taking heart medications versus people who don't and then claiming the medications are killing the folks when it could be that heart disease is what is killing them and the pills are not 100% effective at all times to deal with the problem.

      Also, it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself, so comparing the death rates of people with sleep issues who did and who did not take medications may actually show that not taking sleeping pills might kill you if you have insomnia, which is the exact opposite of what the headline is claiming.

    3. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself

      Citation needed

    4. Re:Correllation != Causation by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two "identical" guys one gets pill one doesn't is an anecdote.
      12 thousand is not just a misdiagnosis. There must be something "different" about the 12K that did vs the 12K who did not, other than random chance. I don't think in the UK treatment plans are determined using dice or tarot cards, so there must be something special about the 12K who got the pills... or the 12K who didn't...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, The high correlation between taking sleeping pills and mortality is concerning but it may turn out that the poeple involved were mortal even before they took the pills. More studies needed.

    6. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Correllation != Causation by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      A matched set of controls in your example would be people with comparable heart disease who were not given the medixation. It appears that they have done that in this study:

      Models addressing potential confounding of mortality association by health status To further address the possibility that hypnotic-associated hazards were due to use of hypnotic drugs by patients with a greater burden of disease, so that elevated risks of death might be attributable to comorbidities rather than to hypnotic medications, we conducted analyses within subgroups of hypnotic non-users and users defined by diagnoses in specific disease classes (supplemental table 7). Allowing for differences in sample size, hazards in subgroups restricted to patients with specific diseases were generally consistent with the overall findings. We also observed no statistically reliable differences in death HR in subgroups constructed to assess the overall burden of disease by stratifying on the total number of comorbidities diagnosed for each patient, and no reliable differences in death HR comparing groups diagnosed with different numbers of comorbidity classes. Whereas the raw death rate of the user cohort was 4.86 times that of non-user controls (table 1), adjustment for all covariates (eg, age, gender, BMI, smoking) with stratification by comorbidities only reduced the overall HR to 4.56 (95% CI 3.95 to 5.26).

    8. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. The study doesn't prove anything. To reiterate, correlation != causation

      Let's think about this. The type of person who is perscribed sleeping pills has inherent differences with their peers, general populace or filtered. So reasons for mortality could be any of a number of things, including:
      -Sleeping pills themselves
      -Mentally destructive paradigms that cause unhealthy stress
      -Stressful lives
      -Genetic, linked traits that yield insomnia and higher mortality
      -etc

    9. Re:Correllation != Causation by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

      They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?

      By RTFA, which I strongly advise you to do before jumping in to comment. They matched them on other factors like gender, sex, occupation etc, but not sleep trouble. Since lack of good sleep is a proven strong factor in heart disease and cancer, I feel that they did it wrong.

      --
      This space for rent.
    10. Re:Correllation != Causation by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Because their results make absolutely no sense. According to the study you are more likely to die from any cause because you were prescribed sleeping pills. Therefore the act of receiving a prescription somehow increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, etc. They also state that statistically these patients did not already have disease when the experiment was begun.

      Well good thing science isn't just about explaining statistics. I'm waiting for an adequate plausible explanation for the above. The fact that their confidence interval bands overlap does not help their cause at all.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Correllation != Causation by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      That is the point of the controls.
      "Correlation != Causation" is used when you find a statistical trend in a group.
      But if you take a group and have some of that group be the controls (identical except for one variable) then you cannot say that.
      You could find a flaw in their control method, but simply saying "Correlation != Causation" is idiotic in all situations like this.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    12. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just had a similar discussion with my doctor. The medical need for sleeping pills generally means they are fixing a symptom of another condition...overweight, severe depression or anxiety, sleep apnea, etc...

      I'd go with the "correlation does not equal causality" ... But this is an insurance company writing the report.

    13. Re:Correllation != Causation by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because of course you know this but the researchers doing the work didn't hink of that because they are idiots?

      So which part of their methodology specifically do you have a problem with, given you must have checked it before spouting off, right?

      Here you go, here's some of the methodology paragraphs from the linked article, though of course you also read the supplementary material to I hope (slashdot doesn't like some of the fancy characters like +/-):

      Using a query into the EHR, we selected all 224â757 primary care patients â¥18 years of age with outpatient visits between 1 January 2002 and 30 September 2006. A further query of this subset identified 12â465 unique patients who had at least one order for a hypnotic medication and were followed-up and survived â¥3 months subsequent to that order. For each hypnotic user, we attempted to identify two controls with no record of a hypnotic prescription in the EHR at any time from among the 212â292 remaining non-users. Non-user controls were matched to the user cohort by: sex, age ±5 years, smoking status and start of period of observation either by calendar date ±1 year (preferred) or by length of observation. A control likewise could not have <3 months of observation in the EHR. We identified 24â793 controls, there being fewer than 200 hypnotic users for whom only one control could be matched. We extracted demographic data, height and weight measurements, diagnoses recorded in outpatient visit records, problem lists and the cancer registry, and orders for all medications, including the indication associated with that order. Only hypnotics frequently prescribed in the EHR and FDA-indicated by the US Food and Drug Administration for insomnia were included in these analyses and then only if it appeared that bedtime dosage was intended (see supplemental files). Roughly three of four (76.3%) of prescribed hypnotics had an explicitly sleep-related indication since physicians often use another diagnosis when they believe that insomnia is secondary to other conditions.9 Medication orders were further reviewed by a physician (DFK) to exclude initially identified patients who did not fully meet criteria for users and matched non-users of hypnotics. Two per cent of patients were excluded for these reasons. Patients diagnosed with major cancer (apart from non-melanoma skin cancers) before the period of observation or within the first 0.05 years of follow-up were also excluded, reducing the numbers to 10â531 users and 23â674 matched non-user controls.

      As prospectively planned, we examined the associations of hypnotic prescriptions with deaths, using Cox proportional hazards models in SPSS V.12.0.0 (SPSS, Inc.). Backwards stepwise models were calculated, with likelihood ratio criteria of p<0.10 to retain a variable and p<0.05 to re-enter. To control for potential confounders, model covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, body mass index (BMI) and self-reported alcohol use and smoking status. To minimise confounding by indication (eg, a physician might have prescribed a hypnotic to treat a non-sleep condition associated with disturbed sleep), comorbid diagnoses were entered as strata in the primary models as described in the following paragraph, and other models were constructed limited to users and controls with specific categories of comorbidity. To address the possibility that hypnotics were prescribed for an emerging condition that was not yet recorded as a diagnosis, comorbid conditions were controlled whether first diagnosed before or during the period of observation.

      To control for different classes of comorbidity and each patient's overall burden of comorbidities, the primary proportional hazards models were constructed incorporating stratification on up to 116 comorbidity combinations. The 116 strata compared almost all hypnotic users with non-users having exactly the same combinations of 12 classes of comorbidity. Two sets of additiona

    14. Re:Correllation != Causation by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      Also, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and do you believe in life after love?

      I'd go on, but XKCD has as usual provided appropriate mouseover text.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    15. Re:Correllation != Causation by dmomo · · Score: 1

      Correllation == Association though.

      That's what they're claiming. Just because it's not the cause, doesn't mean it's not useful to know. Your theory about insomnia certainly isn't one that the researchers are unaware of. They're collecting data as they should be.

    16. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if they matched by sleep trouble, there's still something inherently different (be it characteristics/lifestyle or genetics) between someone who is prescribed and takes sleeping pills vs one who leaves it untreated or uses alternative treatment methods

    17. Re:Correllation != Causation by mystikkman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was a not a controlled study but is a general experiment so that does raise the question of why a doctor would not prescribe sleeping pills to someone who is having a lot of trouble sleeping?

      The only way to conclusively prove this would be to take patients who are going to be prescribed sleeping pills, split them into two while adjusting for other controls and have one group take the pills and other placebos and then monitor them.

    18. Re:Correllation != Causation by metlin · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.

    19. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To elaborate, notice the qualifier prescription sleeping pills. Which means they are studying people with serious sleeping problems, which was not one of the factors controlled for.

    20. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the sicker you are, the more likely you are to have sleep problems, which in turn means you are more likely to take sleeping pills. Furthermore there are diseases other then insomnia which cause insomnia as a symptom which have a high mortality rate--for example speep apeaniacs

    21. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those were not controls. They were simply a group matched on a very few parameters. Not everything. Not nearly everything relevant.

      A control would have been to take people diagnosed exactly the same and giving some sleeping pills and the others placebos. That didn't happen. The sleeping pill group might have all had a family history of sleep apnea which was not diagnosed before giving the pills. We don't know because there was no randomization.

      "Correlation != Causation" is EXACTLY the case we have here.

    22. Re:Correllation != Causation by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Most people are arguing that their controls - sex, gender, occupation - didn't control enough for sleep variations.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Correllation != Causation by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.

      Are you sure?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/bad-science-research-error

      But in just this situation, academics in neuroscience papers routinely claim to have found a difference in response, in every field imaginable, with all kinds of stimuli and interventions: comparing younger versus older participants; in patients against normal volunteers; between different brain areas; and so on.

      How often? Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was. They broadened their search to 120 cellular and molecular articles in Nature Neuroscience, during 2009 and 2010: they found 25 studies committing this fallacy, and not one single paper analysed differences in effect sizes correctly.

      These errors are appearing throughout the most prestigious journals for the field of neuroscience. How can we explain that? Analysing data correctly, to identify a "difference in differences", is a little tricksy, so thinking generously, we might suggest that researchers worry it's too longwinded for a paper, or too difficult for readers. Alternatively, less generously, we might decide it's too tricky for the researchers themselves.

      Why is it wrong for a Slashdot poster to have a conversation over the statistics involved when the headline is so sensationalist? What if someone reading stops taking sleeping pills that are helping them sleep and then get needlessly killed by insomnia because of bad statistics? Can't there atleast be a discussion on the statistics used?

      I am tired of seeing stupid comments like yours that actually don't refute anything and instead attack the poster and call scientists infallible and above question.

      --
      This space for rent.
    24. Re:Correllation != Causation by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up.

      Me too.

      Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster.

      Than a random slashdot poster, yes. That this implies that all slashdot posters don't know shit about statistics is fallacious.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    25. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But this is an insurance company writing the report."

      This is key here. Correlation is fine for the purposes of an insurance company. It expresses the likelihood of costs to the company. Actuarial folks just need a correlation. It doesn't need to be causation to be 'good enough' for what they are trying to do. It's a different job/aim than what is important to the scientist/doctor/patient, where knowing the causation is important.

    26. Re:Correllation != Causation by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Whereas the raw death rate of the user cohort was 4.86 times that of non-user controls (table 1), adjustment for all covariates (eg, age, gender, BMI, smoking) with stratification by comorbidities only reduced the overall HR to 4.56 (95% CI 3.95 to 5.26).

      You know what I don't see in the list of variables they controlled for? Sleep issues. It's not a matched set of controls if your experimental group is diagnosed with a serious medical condition (in this case sleep disorders) and your control group is not.

    27. Re:Correllation != Causation by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So are you suggesting they deny a random group what is the current medication for a condition before this type of data analysis study?

      I suspect you'll have trouble getting ethics approval if you don't do the data study and have it show what this one does first.

    28. Re:Correllation != Causation by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      According to the study you are more likely to die from any cause because you were prescribed sleeping pills. Therefore the act of receiving a prescription somehow increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, etc. They also state that statistically these patients did not already have disease when the experiment was begun.

      I don't see anything that can't be explained by the simple fact that older people often have trouble sleeping, and are more likely to take sleeping pills. Ever see anyone under 50 in a Sominex commercial?

    29. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Benzodiazepines (see article) are also prescribed for anxiety and taken over the day, not specifically as "sleeping pills". At least in the Netherlands seresta (oxazepam) is handed out like candy. Or at least that was the case in 2003. I suffered for months withdrawal effects, see also Quitting Oxazepam (Serax) - personal experience with withdrawal.

    30. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a Sominex commercial, but in the Lunesta ones it's not a 50 year old rockin that nighty.

    31. Re:Correllation != Causation by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Listen to your own advice and read the paper yourself before commenting.

      They specifically compensated later on for difference in heart disease, asthma so on. The impact on the final result was minimal.

    32. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation may not be sufficient to show causation, but it is necessary. To say the study doesn't prove anything is a bit disingenuous. It may not be proof of causation, but it certain does disproves the contrapositive.

    33. Re:Correllation != Causation by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They tried to do that under the assumption that in general a lack of sleep probably doesn't kill you. The hypertension, or diabetes, or heart disease, or liver failure or obesity is that kills you. They did control for differences in those factors and found no change in their results.

      Of course, the increased rate of crashing your car into to a wall at 90mph due to insomnia wouldn't be taken into account.

    34. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040284/

      The study I linked above says that sleep-disorders are linked to an increase in morbidity by a factor of 2.4 to 3.5 (95% confidence). TFA says that the use of sleeping pills is linked to an increase in morbidity depending on dose, by a factor of 2.92 to 6.30 (95% confidence). Only the smallest dose level of 0.4-18 per year jives with the results of the study I linked.
      THEREFORE: There seems to be a statistically significant increase in morbidity for people who take more than 18 sleeping pills per year, versus people prescribed with sleeping disorders by a physician.

    35. Re:Correllation != Causation by FlavaFlavivirus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the paper: "A randomised clinical trial of sufficient duration and size could provide definitive evidence for or against the disturbing mortality hazards suggested by our study. Some American NIH reviewers have opined that a randomised trial of hypnotic lethality would be unethical. No such trial has ever been mounted, perhaps for reasons similar to the absence of randomised trials of cigarettes and of skydiving without parachutes." It is absolutely unethical to give persons with no history of sleeping problems a potentially-lethal drug. This is as good as it gets.

    36. Re:Correllation != Causation by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      This was a not a controlled study

      Statistical controls are controls.

      that does raise the question of why a doctor would not prescribe sleeping pills to someone who is having a lot of trouble sleeping?

      As is the case in many areas of medicine, different doctors will have different medical judgement about when the risks outweigh the benefits of prescription sleeping pills, when to recommend non-prescription remedies (and which remedies), and patients will vary in how the comply with and respond to non-prescription remedies.

      The only way to conclusively prove this would be to take patients who are going to be prescribed sleeping pills, split them into two while adjusting for other controls and have one group take the pills and other placebos and then monitor them.

      Obviously, this is the best (in terms of quality of evidence) way to get strong results, but its a difference in degree rather than kind from any other statistically controlled experiment and doesn't provide "conclusive proof" of causation in way which presents a nice, neat binary distinction from other methods of investigation.

    37. Re:Correllation != Causation by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      What may be showing in this study (if it has any merit at all) is that chemically induced sleep may not provide enough "rest" to be useful.
      I know of one person with a sleep problem that does not like taking sleep meds because its a express ticket to Nightmares on the level of "Pinhead looks Like Reverend Fred McFeely Rogers".

      So i would (just dartboarding ideas) do a study where

      1 Control Group (does nothing special)
      2-N Meds Group (takes different meds)
      N+1 Sound Group (listens to different sounds may need to break this down also)
      N+2 Light Group (uses modified lighting to induce sleep)
      N+3 Other Group (whatever does not fit elsewhere)

      I think the main goal is to induce a "normal sleep cycle" so "we" need to fill in the various possible solutions.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    38. Re:Correllation != Causation by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another bogus study recently was on the correlation of Diet Soda to Heart desease.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-soda-diet-idUSTRE81J03920120220

      The problem is the factors that bring people to diet soda are overweight or diabetes which are both factors that would tend to increase risk of heart desease. Here too the people that are prescribed sleeping pills are a self selected group on some problem associated with sleep. They can say they have factored in all the external variables but that may not be that case or there may be other factors related to sleep problems that are more to blame and this study would not be complete or accurate unless it followed an equally large group of people that would have been given sleeping pills but were not and/or given a placebo, You don't know if giving a pill is the problem say vs not giving a pill as one factor. If you give a placebo you don't test that variable.

      The study said it matched "matched controls with no hypnotic prescriptions" but they did not match with those who would have been prescribed meds but weren't. You may only be seeing the effect of the problems they had. I could be that the meds actually lengthened life vs the group not given them. This is the problem with vacines that have side effects, but the cure in general is much better for society than the side effects.

      But that kind of study is hard to come by so you may just have to go on the data you have but as in religion and politics attribution can be a grand evil.

    39. Re:Correllation != Causation by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      According to the study thr results were adjusted for age, so age as a factor is not supposed to be relevant.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    40. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the grandparent AC here, but that's a very poor example. In the case of sleep apnea, the danger comes from the obstructed breathing. The "bad sleep" is a side effect of this.

    41. Re:Correllation != Causation by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Having had insomnia and tackled it one time around with sleeping pills and another time around by kicking energy drinks, caffeine, sugars, and artificial additives to the curb and integrating healthy food and teas, I can tell you there's a difference.

      Like most anything that leads to trading on Wall Street, sleeping pills are about making money off of your ailments, not bettering your health.

    42. Re:Correllation != Causation by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      He has a point... if you actually read the article the authors specifically pointed this out already. Clearly they understand the usual trite statistics adage, but that doesn't mean the study wasn't interesting.

      Cohort studies demonstrating association do not necessarily imply causality, but the preferable randomised controlled trial method for assessing hypnotic risks may be impractical due to ethical and funding limitations.

      Which IMO kind of makes the title of your comment almost as sensationalist/misleading as the Slashdot headline...

    43. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think in the UK treatment plans are determined using dice or tarot cards

      Today I learned that Pennsylvania is in the UK. Thanks, vlm.

    44. Re:Correllation != Causation by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      There are also plenty of sleeping pills that act totally different on a person. They need a much larger study.

    45. Re:Correllation != Causation by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Uh, they might not have but there is a real good chance they have not got it totally right since there are so many kinds of sleeping pills to begin with not to mention not sleeping is definitely not good for you. I wonder who is behind the funding of the study. Follow the money and find the answer.

    46. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. The study doesn't prove anything. To reiterate, correlation != causation

      This kind of comment has begun to seriously irritate me. Anyone else?

    47. Re:Correllation != Causation by u38cg · · Score: 1
      They followed 12k users of sleeping pills, they didn't observe 12k deaths. They observed Cox hazard ratios on the order of 4/5 times, so there is unquestionably an effect; of course, now it's a correlation/causation question.

      The correct next step would be a randomised trial. However, I don't see how you can ethically design a trial for this setup.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    48. Re:Correllation != Causation by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Nowhere does the article say they controlled for sleep problems.

      The people who go to the doctor for and use prescription strength sleeping pills have severe sleeping issues. Comparing them to a control group that does not suffer from them does not make a good control. How does compensating for heart disease and asthma help?

      --
      This space for rent.
    49. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said "matched set of controls," not "general populace." How do you know they did it wrong?

      By RTFA, which I strongly advise you to do before jumping in to comment.

      How quaint, you must be new here.

    50. Re:Correllation != Causation by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      The comparison is done using "specific disease classes". It does not rule out an unknown or undiagnosed illness in the patients that are causing them to use, misuse or abuse sleeping pills. The statistics can only be adjusted for known diagnosed illnesses.

      It also does not deal with the issue of people who use sleeping pills responsably; ie not often and only for a couple of nights at a time. Perhaps it is the chronic pill poppers whi are dieing and maybe there is an underlying reason for the insomnia that is causeing the death.

      This is a bad study as they do not track any of the following (all of which even a layman can see would have an impact);
      Perscribed dose,
      Frequency
      Actual dose
      Effectiveness of dose
      There is no way of knowing if patients are not perscribed dose A, Taking 3X dose A, not sleeping and doing this for months on end. It is easy to see that is class of people may be at risk but the study does not track it.

      It mentions "suplimental table 7) but I can not seem to find it.

    51. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, agreed. It's become another parroted phrase where you have to question every time whether the poster really knows what it means. It's up there with that "obscurity != security" quote.

    52. Re:Correllation != Causation by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      I found it and the list is appauling;
      Hypertension, Peptic Ulcer Disease, Diabetes ,Cardiovascular Disease , Coronary Heart Disease , Obesity , Asthma, COPD, Cerebrovascular Disease , Heart Failure, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease.

      They sure missed a few biggies;
      Cancer, depression, liver disease.
      All of these diseases would cause in increase in the use of sleeping pills due to pain.

    53. Re:Correllation != Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Commenting on the article you linked to, in my experience it's not a failure to recognize that you have to compare the magnitude of differences directly. It's a bigger problem. People, including researchers in many fields, have the strange idea that "not significantly different" means "no difference." The problem is probably second only to the habit of not correcting for multiple comparisons.

    54. Re:Correllation != Causation by sjames · · Score: 1

      No study can be all encompassing. Instead, each is a piece of the puzzle. THIS study shows that there is a correlation that is worth tracking down. Had it found none, then all the rest would have been a huge waste of effort.

      At the same time, it doesn't mean we should start calling sleeping pills death pills or withdraw them in a panic (though, notably benzos are already known to have some serious drawbacks for long term use).

    55. Re:Correllation != Causation by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Your own comment said that lack of sleep is linked to heart disease. As a result your claim was that those with sleep issues would have a higher death rate due to the induced heart disease. However, by controlling for heart disease the study removes that from being a factor.

      In other words, your argument that the study was invalid because lack of sleep is strongly linked to increased heart disease was wrong.

      Now you can make the claim, as I did in another post, that there are factors caused by lack of sleep they didn't control for (ie: not heart disease, liver failure, diabetes, asthma, obesity, etc, etc.) but heart disease is not one of them.

      Cancer is an interesting one. They do observe more cancer in the drug users than the non-drug users. On the surface you could argue that supports your views however they also note that multiple controlled randomized studies show a link between these drugs and cancer.

    56. Re:Correllation != Causation by euroq · · Score: 2

      it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself

      Citation needed

      Totally disagree that a citation is needed. You should already know this. You wouldn't have asked for a citation if the quote was "it has been proved that obesity is a killer by itself".

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    57. Re:Correllation != Causation by treeves · · Score: 1

      Me too, but it might not be correlated.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    58. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been pointed out many times this study does not clearly say that taking sleeping pills increases your chances of death all other factors being normal...

      What they should have done was to compare mortality rates between groups of patients taking different forms of sleeping pills. This would at least have the potential to show that one drug does increase mortality.

    59. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will happily do this for you, simply provide me with all datum on the general populace. Oh wait, some PERSONAL MEDICAL RECORDS are not public record? THE HORROR

    60. Re:Correllation != Causation by pclminion · · Score: 1

      It seems like giving a placebo would ruin the double-blind nature of the study, as it would be very obvious who was getting Ambien and who was getting placebo. They aren't testing the efficacy of Ambien (that's already known), we already know what the effects are and both the doctor and study participant could easily tell if they had the fake stuff.

    61. Re:Correllation != Causation by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points... Well done AC.

    62. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who don't breath may be at a higher risk of dying than those who breath!

    63. Re:Correllation != Causation by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I bet the UK wishes it still was.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    64. Re:Correllation != Causation by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Why make the obviously false assertion that correlation does not equal causation?

      Correlation does not always indicate causation, but where there's causation, correlation most certainly does equal causation.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    65. Re:Correllation != Causation by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself

      Citation needed

      Totally disagree that a citation is needed. You should already know this. You wouldn't have asked for a citation if the quote was "it has been proved that obesity is a killer by itself".

      It most certainly has not. When you control for things like fitness, the association between adiposity and age of death disappears. More fat has been shown to be protective when in recovery from cancer and cardiac events. If you're skinny, those things are more likely to kill you when they happen. I could produce citations, but I won't because I'm too lazy to go digging. But if you want to go and look, you will find these studies have been done and obesity, independent of all the other things that tend to go along with obesity, is not a killer, quite the opposite.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    66. Re:Correllation != Causation by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      They should do the same sort of study on frequent travelers. Some take sleep drugs for jetlag, some don't, They tend not to be frequent travelers because of some underlying disorder.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    67. Re:Correllation != Causation by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The people taking the medications might be dying sooner because they have insomnia which is not fixed by sleeping pills easily. The study should not compare with the general populace since they are, by definition, better sleepers than the group that isn't able to get good sleep.

      Plus if I'm taking a lot of sleeping pills, chances are I want to die.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    68. Re:Correllation != Causation by euroq · · Score: 1

      ah I guess the key phrase here was "killer by itself". Anyways, we all know that obese people and people who don't sleep have more health problems and hence "more unhealthy" than otherwise.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    69. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the study says, "Results were robust within groups suffering each comorbidity, indicating that the death and cancer hazards associated with hypnotic drugs were not attributable to pre-existing disease."

    70. Re:Correllation != Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so that does raise the question of why a doctor would not prescribe sleeping pills to someone who is having a lot of trouble sleeping?

      Plenty of reasons - but probably the single most obvious one is that one common cause of insomnia is clinical depression. It's not unknown for patients suffering from clinical depression to experience suicidal ideation. Join the dots...

  3. How often is this done? by pclminion · · Score: 1

    How often is healthcare data used for these sorts of studies? Not that I have a problem with it, quite the opposite, so long as the data is sanitized. To me it makes more sense to data mine existing records than set up and conduct expensive studies, am I missing something or is this actually commonly done?

    1. Re:How often is this done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, Tommy"); drop table subjects; will make sure the data is very sanitary.

    2. Re:How often is this done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know the answer to your questions, but; I read a lot of medical journals that are not open to the public and I don't often see studies like this even in those journals. It seems like a good idea and I wonder why it isn't done more often.

    3. Re:How often is this done? by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're called "statistical studies" and they are used as evidence that a real study should be done, not that there's an actual effect in play. The problem with such studies is that they try their best to select an identical control group, but it's hard to do so. In this case it means matching the 15,000 people on the drug with 15,000 people who also have been diagnosed with insomnia (and for similar reasons), but all elected not to be medicated for it. Then you hope that that decision isn't in any way correlated with other behaviors that might increase or decrease the death rate.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:How often is this done? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "they are used as evidence that a real study should be done,"

      If possible. Sometimes it's not. The authors give the example of smoking - there are no randomized trials showing that smoking is bad for you. All the evidence is observational, backed up by knowledge of a bunch of likely mechanisms. In general, if you suspect that some factor is detrimental, you cannot do a randomized study because giving people something you suspect will hurt them is unethical.

  4. Melatonin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about melatonin? Sleeping pills don't work for me but 1mg of melatonin knocks me out easily. I figure it's safe because melatonin is naturally produced by the body anyway to signal you that it's time for sleep.

    1. Re:Melatonin? by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 1

      Morphine is also naturally sinthesized by our organism.

      --
      -- --
    2. Re:Melatonin? by RobCull · · Score: 4, Informative

      Melatonin is fine and I highly recommend its use, opposed to traditional sleep aids (I use it). Melatonin is a sleep aid, in that it aids you in falling asleep... but it is different from traditional (prescription) sleep aids such as Ambien, in that it is a hormone supplement.

      Melatonin is a non-benzodiazepine, while traditional sleep aids are benzodiazepines. Melatonin (N-acetyl-5 methoxytryptamine) is a compound naturally created in the pineal gland of the brain which triggers sleep. This should not be confused with the feeling of being tired, depleted of energy, or "heavy eyes." Traditional sleep aids act more like an anesthetic, actually making you feel tired and/or knocking you out.

      Melatonin is non-habit forming, nor does the body develop tolerances for it, as in drugs like Ambien. It's kind of like a "passive" sleep aid, while Ambien/Benadryl/Lunesta/etc would be "active" sleep aids. There's a reason why it is available over-the-counter.

      Note- while you can get Melatonin over-the-counter, you'll likely find nothing higher than 1mg doses (sometimes up to 3mg). You CAN, however, get a prescription for it. Then you can get a higher dose (up to 5mg?), in larger quantities (bottle of 40 as opposed to over-the-counter pack of 14ish), and your insurance will likely cover it.
      Warning- with higher doses, especially if your body is already producing it's own, it may take a while for your body to expel the excess in the morning. This could make you feel groggy, make it hard to wake up, and make it too easy for you to fall back asleep (i.e. while driving). Take it 20-60min before sleep, sleep for at least 8 hours, give yourself 20-60min to wake up before driving.

      Hope this helps! :o]

    3. Re:Melatonin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful with that terminology -- Ambien, Lunesta, and other "Z-drugs" are commonly referred to as "non-benzodiazepines" (real great name, right?). Some benzodiazepines are used as sleep aids, but they're also used for other purposes as well (anxiolytics, treatment of seizures, etc.).

      I've never heard of melatonin being called a "non-benzodiazepine". It's not a benzodiazepine drug like diazepam/lorazepam/alprazolam, but it's also not in the "non-benzodiazepine" family with Ambien (zolpidem) and others. It's just a hormone that's also found in the mammalian pineal gland.

    4. Re:Melatonin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Melatonin is a human hormone and at least according to the wiki page has other beneficial effects on cholesterol and possibly works as an antioxidant.... it seems like people have been doing some research on it lately. Personally, taking some around 1-2 hours before bed time fixed my lack of sleepiness at night (having to wake up at 4:30 a.m. sucks if you're not naturally inclined to go to bed early). Also found that it seems to increase my receptivity to waking up because of the light, in winter I use a lamp on a timer as an alarm clock, taking melatonin makes me not sleep until noon, and makes me wake up whenever it gets light out.

    5. Re:Melatonin? by RobCull · · Score: 1

      Careful with that terminology -- Ambien, Lunesta, and other "Z-drugs" are commonly referred to as "non-benzodiazepines"

      Incorrect. Ambien and Lunesta are actually atypical benzo's. They are not referred to as non-benzodiazepines.

      Ambien = Zolpidem = Atypical benzodiazepine
      Lunesta = Eszopiclone = Atypical benzodiazepine

      Melatonin is a non-benzodiazepine because it's not a benzodiazepine, but still a "hypnotic" because it is a hormone which activates the melatonin receptors in the pineal gland of the brain (it's also an antioxidant and some other stuff).

      Benzodiazepines are habit-forming and tolerance-building drugs. Ambien/Lunesta are definitely that.

    6. Re:Melatonin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience one does develop a tolerance for certain effects of melatonin, most noticeably its vivid dream-inducing effects, within days of starting it. For me it's not habit-forming, and I'm not saying anyone should avoid the drug because of this tolerance I noticed, but people should be skeptical whenever someone says a new drug does not develop tolerance in the user. These claims are made for almost every new kind of drug that acts on the brain, and they're almost always wrong.

      By the way, I think most people don't need anything more than 1 mg. If it doesn't seem to work, try taking it earlier in the evening or try chewing it up (for buccal absorbtion.) IANAD.

  5. Neat but not surprising by Anrego · · Score: 1

    Neat, but not surprising.

    Taking pills to help/force you to fall asleep on a consistent basis can't be good for you. That said, neither can not sleeping on a consistent basis. Even with the risks in mind, I imagine in many cases it still makes sense to keep taking the pills?

    Luckily I sleep like a log.

    1. Re:Neat but not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who takes Xanax, I can pretty much guarantee that my life will be longer with the drug than with untreated insomnia.

    2. Re:Neat but not surprising by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I quit smoking because I don't want to get cancer, and I don't want to smell bad all the time, and I don't want to be out of breath walking up the stairs. That said, I loved smoking. I still miss it every day, but the risks are greater than the rewards.

      Stop taking my sleeping pills? Hah. Have you ever been so tired that you get a sore throat? Or that you argue with yourself at a stop light, "no, don't close your eyes, I know it would feel really really good but if you do that you'll miss the green and might not wake up until somebody knocks on your window"? Your legs shake, you feel sick to your stomach, your palms sweat constantly, your eyes try to close with all their might until you can hear the muscles straining in your ears.

      Now try feeling like that for months on end. Stop taking my sleeping pills? Fuck that shit, I'd rather die early.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    3. Re:Neat but not surprising by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      Your username is apt.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    4. Re:Neat but not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or that you argue with yourself at a stop light, "no, don't close your eyes, I know it would feel really really good but if you do that you'll miss the green and might not wake up until somebody knocks on your window"?

      Seriously, if you are having that conversation with yourself, please turn off the car and a take a nap until someone arrives to safely move your car out of traffic and get you to a bed. Much better to sleep at a stoplight in a stopped car than sleep in a moving car you were ostensibly driving.

    5. Re:Neat but not surprising by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure looks like you CAN sleep without sleeping pills:

      Or that you argue with yourself at a stop light, "no, don't close your eyes, I know it would feel really really good but if you do that you'll miss the green and might not wake up until somebody knocks on your window"?

      So maybe you're a nocturnal person?

      --
    6. Re:Neat but not surprising by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Oh, no doubt about it. 10-11 PM rolls around, and no matter how exhausted I've been all day, I come alive. I get ideas, I'm motivated to clean up the house, I get ideas for whatever programming project I'm working on, I want to call my friends--but it's time to crush all that energy down and go to bed, because I have to be to work at 8 AM. When I can go to bed at 4-5 AM and wake up around noon, everything is perfect.

      Employers, however, do not give a single fuck. If you have trouble getting up in the morning, you're lazy. Why don't you just go to bed earlier, you dummy? Being an employer and being a morning person seem to have a high degree of correlation, and morning people generally have a very hard time empathizing with night people. Night people are "wrong" or something. I don't know, I don't care anymore. For right now, I'd rather have money than feel good. I've been poor. It's worse. A sleeping pill every night, and instead of it being impossible, I'm just blurry and kind of tired all the time.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    7. Re:Neat but not surprising by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      I've had sleeping problems since I was a teenager, and I've learned many, many tricks.

      The main thing is, you need to give yourself extra room for slower reactions and worse decision making. Like, double the space you would normally give yourself. The next most important thing is, every two seconds or so, you should be saying to yourself, "HEY STUPID! STOP THINKING ABOUT WHATEVER WEIRD THING YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT AND PAY ATTENTION!" You'll need to say that to yourself again in another two seconds or so, once you get to a certain level of tired there's no way to stop it, but if you can keep the energy up to keep yelling at yourself you'll be fine.

      I know, it's terrible, but I do what I can to not endanger other people's lives. I think my driving record over the last 14 years is a testament to the fact that my "tricks" are effective, but I have no illusions that I'm as safe as I could possibly be, and if I ever cause an accident I'll feel terrible. But I'm not going to consign myself to a shitty life just because the world isn't fair and makes no accommodation for people who can't sleep during normal hours. The world's not fair to me, I have to feel like shit all the time, the world's not fair to you, there's dangerous people like me on the road. That's just the way it is. If it's any consolation, statistically, this is eventually going to cause enough problems for me at work that I'll be fired, and no longer able to afford to drive. Then I'll be homeless and everybody will be safe again! Yay!

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    8. Re:Neat but not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop taking my sleeping pills? Hah. Have you ever been so tired that you get a sore throat? Or that you argue with yourself at a stop light, "no, don't close your eyes, I know it would feel really really good but if you do that you'll miss the green and might not wake up until somebody knocks on your window"? Your legs shake, you feel sick to your stomach, your palms sweat constantly, your eyes try to close with all their might until you can hear the muscles straining in your ears.

      Maybe you should try stop taking meth for a week or two and see how that feels?

    9. Re:Neat but not surprising by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      I understand this completely. There is some cycle that kicks in around 11 PM and I am at my most alert state of the entire day - I call it my second wind. You might consider becoming a contractor or freelancing where you can set your own schedule.

      BTW I have found backing away from a lighted computer screen around 9:30 and reading for an hour that i have a better chance of getting back on schedule.

    10. Re:Neat but not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a number of company owners who are night people. But they might hire morning people as managers to make sure people come to work on time ;).

      More importantly there are employers and bosses who don't care whether you come in in the morning or not - they care whether the job gets done. You'd still have to come in for some meetings.

      Or just find a job where you can work at your best times? Of course if you job pays you a lot then I guess it's worth it.

    11. Re:Neat but not surprising by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      I have the same issue. Half an Ambien and a small bit of neat whiskey works wonders.

      Temazepam is fscking awesome for me, but me new doctor won't prescribe it for me. :(

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  6. NEWS FLASH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unhealthy people, have a higher mortality rate?

  7. Right by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Ahh those overlapping confidence intervals.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Right by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Um, so what? Confidence intervals overlap all the time. In fact, you can always make them overlap if you pick the right ones.

      Besides, I'm having trouble finding which ones concern you. All the CIs I can find are on hazard ratios.

  8. Chronic Pain Problems by jamiedolan · · Score: 1

    I strongly suspect a lot of people with chronic pain issues are on some kind of sleeping pills. These people may have skewed the study because they already have health conditions that are leading to increased mortality.

    1. Re:Chronic Pain Problems by berashith · · Score: 1

      yup. cancer can cause insomnia. Guess what else cancer can cause?

    2. Re:Chronic Pain Problems by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect a lot of people with chronic pain issues are on some kind of sleeping pills.

      The types of pills in the study - hypnotics - don't really help when you're in pain. Of course, they would if you mixed them with strong pain-killers, but then you'd have the possibly of actually dying (dieing?) in your sleep...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. If you have a hard time sleepin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Exercise
    2) If you can't, then try Bija Sleep Well tea. Really works.

    1. Re:If you have a hard time sleepin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need to shill for a specific brand. I don't know what's in your selection. Anything with chamomile in it will tend to make you sleepy unless it's counterbalanced by some other herb. YMMV. Chamomile works for me. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have a cup and it does nothing. Perhaps there are even people kept up by it. I know that some people can be kept up by sleeping pills because they're nervous about what the pill might do. I'm sure herbs are no different.

    2. Re:If you have a hard time sleepin by Xacid · · Score: 1

      #1 has been my experience as well. I have a few friends who mention having constant problems sleeping. They're also the most inactive and eat like hell. Inactive to the point of refusing anything that might cause activity. :/

      Sure, cardio isn't necessarily as fun as playing Xbox but sleeping awesome is totally worth it. I "trick" myself into exercising by just picking up a sport and sticking with it. Treadmills are boring, but sport can be fun with the right crowd.

    3. Re:If you have a hard time sleepin by hawguy · · Score: 1

      There's no need to shill for a specific brand. I don't know what's in your selection Anything with chamomile in it will tend to make you sleepy unless it's counterbalanced by some other herb. YMMV. Chamomile works for me. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have a cup and it does nothing. Perhaps there are even people kept up by it. I know that some people can be kept up by sleeping pills because they're nervous about what the pill might do. I'm sure herbs are no different.

      Isn't that the entire reason to "shill" for a specific brand? He has a specific brand that works for him so that's what he's recommending. He doesn't know what's in every "sleepy time" tea on the market, and probably doesn't even know what's in his specific brand of tea that makes him sleepy, all he knows is that it works. For him.

    4. Re:If you have a hard time sleepin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I "trick" myself into exercising by just picking up a sport and sticking with it. Treadmills are boring, but sport can be fun with the right crowd.

      Nailed it on the head.

      Back when I embarked on getting into better shape.. I struggled to force myself to do the recommended weekly exercise. It was 30 minutes I really would rather spend doing something else. Then I got into a floor hockey thing some guys at work had going and it literally changed everything. I saw the light. Not only was I getting way more exercise than I was doing jumping jacks in my basement.. but I actually _looked forward_ to it.

      From there I got into badminton, then squash, then skiing.

      I feel great now (I didn't buy it when others told me, but doing more exercise really does give you more energy) and exercise has gone from something I have to do if I don't wanna have a heart attack in 20 years, to something I do purely for enjoyment, with the health benefits a side benefit.

      Also a side benefit I look much more attractive. I never thought I cared about my appearance, but I guess deep down I kinda did. I feel a certain confidence that I never new was missing.. if that makes sense (and I get if it doesn't, because I barely understand it).

    5. Re:If you have a hard time sleepin by Xacid · · Score: 1

      "Also a side benefit I look much more attractive. I never thought I cared about my appearance, but I guess deep down I kinda did. I feel a certain confidence that I never new was missing.. if that makes sense (and I get if it doesn't, because I barely understand it)."

      Makes perfect sense to me. It's kind of a positive feedback loop. It's kind of the same thing I went through - "wow, you look really good" suddenly meant I somehow turned into a viable candidate in the dating meat market. Granted, I'm out of that market now it still sets the bar in a neat way. The more fit I get the less my wife feels inclined to let herself go and vice versa so it's kind of a team thing now. And heck, no one can complain about their wife still being hot throughout the years.

  10. Do The Stats Include Suicide By Sleeping Pills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like including Suicide by Gun in Gun Deaths...

    1. Re:Do The Stats Include Suicide By Sleeping Pills? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      The stats are for Zolpidem and Temazepam, drugs which have a high therapeutic index ration, in other words, several time a one month supply, which is all that a pharmacy is allowed to dispense at the same time. I highly doubt anyone is using these drugs to kill themselves.

    2. Re:Do The Stats Include Suicide By Sleeping Pills? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Does that ratio change much when combined with alcohol?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:Do The Stats Include Suicide By Sleeping Pills? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Considering that, that combo has no official use there is no ratio. I'm not a doctor, but that combo seems risky. You could vomit up the drugs, you could sleep it off, or you could die.

  11. You can't deduce causality from longitudinal study by gust0208 · · Score: 1

    After reading the full study report, the headline for this post is more than a bit sensational (disappointing for /.). This was a longitudinal study comparing a set of data from a certain time period and can't be used to determine causality. Also, the control were only matched on a few data points, making this difficult to apply to a general population or even interpret if there was an actually difference in mortality given that table 3 showing differences in co-morbid diagnoses shows large disparity in key areas like cardiovascular risks, hypertension, heart failure. This point underlies why this study is not helpful. Many serious medical illnesses have insomnia has a symptom, and often treated with a sedative hypnotic. This DOES NOT mean that the sedative hypnotics are "killing" people. I hate studies like this.

  12. this depth of sleep was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not intended...

  13. Most drugs are bunk by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drug companies spend more on marketing than they spend on research. Is it any surprise that these stories keep coming up? SSRIs were going to cure everyone's depression. Now we find out that they're addictive, and only effective in the very worst cases of depression. Vioxx was going to usher in a new age of pain relief for arthritis, turns out it killed tens of thousands of people. Hormone replacement therapy was considered essential to prevent osteoporosis in women. Turns out it also causes bone remodeling that makes certain types of fractures even more common. Don't be surprised if we find out in the future that wonder drugs like statins carry risks we haven't been made aware of.

    Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to market. Not to the general public, and not to doctors either.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look up Red Yeast Rice (http://www.naturalnews.com/022046.html) and compare it to statins. Because the active ingredient is essentially the same (RYR contains natural statins), the supplement was pulled from the market due to it being too similar to a drug. Guess which was on the market first? Hint: one has been used for over 1000 years. Also, see: http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2010/07/11/how-safe-are-statins/ for an interesting take on long term statin safety.

    2. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hormone replacement therapy was considered essential to prevent osteoporosis in women. Turns out it also causes bone remodeling that makes certain types of fractures even more common.

      Actually, estrogen is quite effective at preventing fractures. It does raise the risk of certain types of cancer though. You were probably thinking of bisphosphonates, which can make certain types of fractures more common.

    3. Re:Most drugs are bunk by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Don't be surprised if we find out in the future that wonder drugs like statins carry risks we haven't been made aware of.

      As opposed to all the serious risks we have been made aware of? Muscle damage, cognitive dysfunction, etc.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Most drugs are bunk by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Actually, estrogen is quite effective at preventing fractures.

      Which would be good news if it didn't cause a higher incident of clotting crises... (infarctions, strokes, DVTs, etc)

      I've seen some recommendations on estrogen users to stop taking their estrogen at least a whole month before going on a long-distance flight, due to DVT risk...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    5. Re:Most drugs are bunk by gewalker · · Score: 2

      Death is also correlated with use of statin drugs, a rather poor outcome for the patient if you ask me. There have been major studies on this, and takiing statins results in more deaths during the study period, but fewer deaths due to heart attacks. Big deal, dead is still a negative outcome in a drug study.

      I personally consider the huge number of prescriptions for statins to be malpractice. If drug-induced cholesterol lowing was effective in treating hyperlipidemia, why did not the non-statin drugs that lowered cholesterol have a positive health outcome. I think it is because hyperlipidemia is a symptom of the underlying medical problem, not a causal agent.

      So why do statins reduce cardiac events -- statins are anti-inflammatory drugs. This class of drugs is well-known to reduce heart attacks, but also cause numerous health problems when taken long term. You know, kind of like statin drugs do.

    6. Re:Most drugs are bunk by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Vioxx was a really god pain killer yet Celebrex is probably just as dangerous but is still on the market. Go figure? It IS about money for sure.

    7. Re:Most drugs are bunk by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Regular flossing reduces cardiac events too.

      Maybe one day they might find that certain bacteria infections increase your chance of getting heart disease.

      Just like the link between h.pylori and stomach ulcers.

      --
    8. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because homeopathic remedies have been shown to be more effective.

    9. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Please do not construe my criticism of conventional medicine as an endorsement of alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is largely bunk, alternative medicine is completely bunk.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Most drugs are bunk by nido · · Score: 1

      I think it is because hyperlipidemia is a symptom of the underlying medical problem, not a causal agent.

      The underlying medical problem is frequently hypothyroidism, which is partially caused by replacing traditional saturated fats like butter and lard with seed oils (canola, soybean, linseed/flaxseed, etc).

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    11. Re:Most drugs are bunk by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      So your position is that drugs that may be dangerous when purified and given in precise doses should instead be given in highly variable doses in poorly regulated supplements?

    12. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really? So you know that the AEs/SAEs from Vioxx are class specific to COX-2 inhibitors? Any particular data you'd like to indicate? Pfizer sure is spending a lot of money to find out for a drug that will be off patent just about the time the study finishes: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/748508_6

    13. Re:Most drugs are bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since statins are already useless, expensive, and solve the wrong problem, that would be a good thing. Anybody who does any research and still believes that cholesterol is the *cause* of heart disease is either delusional or has a vested interested in it.

    14. Re:Most drugs are bunk by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the same drugs, or are you obfuscating the differences ?
      Do you even know what the differences are ?
      Are you assuming the toxicities are the same ?
      Are you assuming that "highly variable doses" of all (or even most) supplements are hazardous ?

    15. Re:Most drugs are bunk by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The AC claimed that the active ingredient in red yeast rice is "essentially the same" as statins. He was replying to a post about how statins may be dangerous.

      So to answer your questions:

      1) as far as the AC is concerned they are the same
      2) I was replying to a post that asserted there are no real differences
      3) See #1 and 2
      4) No, most supplements are reasonably safe for the simple reason that they don't do anything. There's lots of research showing that. Some are dangerous, particularly for some people, because they DO have active ingredients in them, whether it's ginseng, ginkgo balboa or spinach interfering with someone on warfarin, people overdosing on fat soluble vitamins, someone working up to the LD50 on caffeine pills or, if the AC is right, statin exposure from eating red yeast rice.

  14. Not moving legs while drugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a thought: much recent research shows that not moving one's legs for long periods of time can cause clotting problems, even while awake. What if these people are sleeping without the "normal" tossing and turning, and getting decreased limb circulation while they sleep extra-deeply?

  15. Nothing new here... by Terminus32 · · Score: 1

    Big Pharma kills, period! :-/

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  16. Read their conclusion: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Before you kneejerks get going ("it don' apply causality naw, ya'here?"), please read a couple excerpts:
    "Receiving hypnotic prescriptions was associated with greater than threefold increased hazards of death even when prescribed 18 pills/year. This association held in separate analyses for several commonly used hypnotics and for newer shorter-acting drugs. Control of selective prescription of hypnotics for patients in poor health did not explain the observed excess mortality."

    And regarding the limitations of the study:
    "Cohort studies demonstrating association do not necessarily imply causality, but the preferable randomised controlled trial method for assessing hypnotic risks may be impractical due to ethical and funding limitations."

    There is obviously cause for concern here, but not panic. People on sleeping medication should talk to their doctors about this.

  17. You don't say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, sick people are dying sooner than those who are healthy?

  18. When I die ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... I want to go quietly, in my sleep. Like my grandfather.
    Not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Sleep disorders may be normal, pills are not good! by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    A recent post to /. pointed to several articles that brought up the fact that a solid 8 hours of sleep may not be normal.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep
    http://www.history.vt.edu/Ekirch/sleepcommentary.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/opinion/19ekirch.html
    Our brains may very well be wired to a distrupted sleep and taking pills to 'correct' this is not a good idea!

  20. Yep, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, and another study shows that everyone that drank milk in 1776 is NOW DEAD.

    They did not have "matched controls". Matched controls would be people with sleeping disorders that were not prescribed sleeping pills. See how long you'll live if you can't sleep.

    1. Re:Yep, right by HBI · · Score: 1

      Did you consider: Even if this study is flawed, it might do something about the approach of providing benzos to people who have trouble sleeping. Maybe the actual reason why they aren't sleeping will be investigated. It's probably something completely treatable: overstress, uncontrolled diabetes, nutritional deficiencies, abuse of some other substance like caffeine, etc.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  21. Maybe they needed more sleeping pills. by dittbub · · Score: 1

    What if the higher death rates are because they aren't getting enough sleep!?!

  22. Working as advertised by ark1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    These pills are supposed to put you to sleep, waking up again was never promised.

  23. I stopped taking sleeping pills... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I stopped taking sleeping pills because they had an unintended side affect for me. They kept me awake.

    Caffeine has no affect on me- but taking a sleeping pill keeps me awake all night. I have some odd body chemistry no doubt.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  24. Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by satuon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Urgent bulletin. A new study has found that people having extended stays inside hospitals have a much higher mortality rate than people who don't. Avoid hospitals at all costs.

    1. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More people die or are injured due to 'accidents' in America's hospitals than on America's roads - http://www.naturalnews.com/023892_hospital_hospitals_health.html .

    2. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Who the hell modded this 'Funny?'

      What's so funny about the absolute fact the majority of deaths in hospitals are a direct result of secondary infections received while at the hospital?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      You may be modded funny but it's actually interesting. I would say to try to stay out of the ER. Lots of bad things happen there.

    4. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by egork · · Score: 1

      About the author
      Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of
      Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a
      writer; and an artist.

    5. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the author bio on that article?

      "Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of the international bestseller, The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush; Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes—No More, Ending the AIDS Myth. Feel Great - Lose Weight, Heal Yourself with Sunlight, and Vaccine-nation: Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time."

      Yeah, this guy is a total quack.

    6. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      OK, how about these quacks at the CDC -- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm ??

  25. well either way... by jmb1990 · · Score: 0

    either way you'll be sure to get a good nights sleep!

  26. I don't know about you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but reading this article just cured my insomnia.

    NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDSSSSssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  27. Sleeping pills not necessarily the cause... by rs1n · · Score: 2

    ...it could be the fact that those who have trouble sleeping are pre-dispositioned to having lower mortality. The fact that they also taking sleeping pills is a side issue. I'm just sayin...

    1. Re:Sleeping pills not necessarily the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a different study, which correlates having a prescribed sleeping disorder with ~3x increase in morbidity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040284/). The study in TFA correlates the use of sleeping pills (at least 18 doses/yr) with ~5x increase in morbidity. I've rounded these numbers, but they do seem to have statistical significance.

    2. Re:Sleeping pills not necessarily the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and of course I meant mortality rate, not morbidity.

  28. Great Work by trongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad they discovered that death risk increases with age.
    Did you ever wonder how they come up with death rates that are less than 100%?

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    1. Re:Great Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just assumed that actuaries working in the health care field were still using Intel chips from 18 years ago.

    2. Re:Great Work by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Did you ever wonder how they come up with death rates that are less than 100%?"

      By making the denominator in the rate something like days, years, decades or centuries instead of multiple centuries or millennia?

      Do you understand what a rate is?

    3. Re:Great Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad they discovered that death risk increases with age.
      Did you ever wonder how they come up with death rates that are less than 100%?

      Myself and several of my companions from the Society of Immortal Beings were actually some of the people studied you insensitive clod.

  29. Should have been triple-blind... by fedt · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patients did not know they were being monitored (blind.) The doctors/nurses who entered the charts didn't know their patients' data would be used for this research (double-blind.) The people who analyzed the data, however, had everything upfront to poll and draw whatever conclusions they were looking for. "Using a query into the EHR..." "A further query of this subset..." "For each hypnotic user, we attempted to identify two controls with no record of a hypnotic prescription..." Sounds like they need a triple-blind experimental design.

    1. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds to me like data mining and meta analysis, which is all the rage today.

      This study followed their subjects for an average of ONLY 2.5years. They clearly didn't follow them prior to the prescriptions.
      Further the "controls" were selected based on superficial categories (age, gender, smoking, body mass index, ethnicity, marital status, alcohol use and prior cancer). Nowhere near a complete list of things that keep people awake at night.

      And the causation argument still is the key here, since these drugs (several common hypnotics, including zolpidem, temazepam, eszopiclone, zaleplon, other benzodiazepines, barbiturates and sedative antihistamines) are not usually prescribed for people who have no problem sleeping.

      Selection of controls was really the weak point here.

      If you are under enough stress, or have some other problem keeping you awake, its as likely those issues are to blame as the use of these drugs. The headlines could just as well have been "Trouble Sleeping may be Killing you".

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by Tiroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not really true. The purpose of a double-blind experiment is to set up a study with a controlled variable and observe the outcome. This is a meta-analysis, which looks at previously gathered data and tries to see if there are interesting patterns. The problem with such analysis is that although "blind" in the sense that it does not influence results, it is not "blind" in the choice of data. Whether intentionally or not, by cherry-picking data it is easy to create associations where none exist. This is further biased by the fact that only positive results are reported - no one writes of all the "no correlation" results they may have found through different choices of matched sets.

      For example, I am sure that I could take a piece of data such as daily temperature and pick a subset of the stock market that happened to correlate with it - something that is likely entirely a figment of the data sets. This is the danger in such studies and it explains why they are NOT in any way the same as a double-blind trial.

    3. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      What you're thinking is making the hypothesis first and then doing the experiment. (Otherwise you may fall into the sin of overfitting your data.)

    4. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never thought of a triple blind study but that seems what many studies need to have any chance at accuracy. Good post.

    5. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by euroq · · Score: 0

      If you are under enough stress, or have some other problem keeping you awake, its as likely those issues are to blame as the use of these drugs. The headlines could just as well have been "Trouble Sleeping may be Killing you".

      +1

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    6. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by retchdog · · Score: 2

      this is called "multiple testing," and is an instance of what is derogatorily called "data-dredging" (as opposed to data-mining, which is (hopefully) doing this sort of thing responsibly). there are ways to do multiple testing correctly.

      for instance, you can sometimes test whether there is any effect and then, if that is positive, go into identification. if nothing else, you can do a bonferroni correction, which is dead simple and almost always valid, but also overly stringent (it multiples p-values by the number of hypotheses tested). nowadays you can sometimes sample a population of artificial datasets from the given data and check yourself that way (this is called "bootstrapping").

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The weak point, as I see it, is that they can't compare people who take sleep aids to people with insomnia who don't take sleep aids. It's akin to concluding that people who take chemotherapy medications have a higher mortality rate than people of a similar age who don't take those medications. I don't see it as a leap to say that getting proper sleep would highly correlate with, if not cause, a higher life expectancy.

      The question that we need answered is whether not sleeping is less harmful than sleeping with these pills. I'm not seeing how this study answers that question. Absent that analysis, it's hard for people who are using these drugs for legitimate sleep disorders to make the decision as to whether to continue with them.

    8. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This is further biased by the fact that only positive results are reported - no one writes of all the "no correlation" results they may have found through different choices of matched sets."

      If you're honest with your stats you multiply your p-value by the number of comparisons you did. Yes, some of us do this. There's nothing wrong with retrospective analyses, it's just that so many people do the stats incorrectly.

    9. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      Good point. I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong with this kind of analysis, just that it isn't the same as a double-blind trial. The GP seemed to be saying it was everything double-blind was and more.

    10. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's just that the "positive publication bias" thing is a pet peeve of mine. People who talk about it are usually under the impression that "no correlation" or "not significant" is a negative result. In my experience it's not that hard to get actual negative results published, but very few people produce actual negative results, which require estimating what a meaningful effect size would be and extra stats (plus usually extra power) to show that the true effect is confidently smaller. Producing negative results is considerably harder than positive.

      There IS a bias against publishing inconclusive results. I don't see a problem with that. A separate, and unrelated problem, is that people don't do stats correctly, and one of the biggest offenses is not doing multiple comparison correction.

    11. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Did they control for travel?

      I used to travel a lot and I know a lot of people who travel a lot. People who travel a lot get jet lag a lot.The standard tool of the trade is Zolpidem Tartrate.

      Travel could be bad for you in many ways.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:Should have been triple-blind... by neyla · · Score: 1

      That was my thought too. People take pills because they have some sort of problem. Some of those problems are dangerous. Thus I read this study as saying:

      "People who have some problem with their health, have higher mortality than people who don't."

      And that's kind of a giant "duh!"

  30. more caffiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more coffee! more bawlz! more energy drinks! drink all the caffeine!

    then take sleeping pills.

  31. Irrelevant Statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Death rates were much higher in the patients taking sleeping pills

    Completely invalid. In fact, I'm willing to bet that every person who is now dead was alive at one time, whether or not the individual has been taking sleeping pills. In fact, I have completely anecdotal evidence supporting my hypothesis; each person I know who has died was living at one time.

    Unless the way to immortality is to never take a sleeping pill...

  32. increased mortality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did fewer people in the control group die than in the test group? How does one sign up?

  33. Correlation!=causality by ridgecritter · · Score: 3, Informative

    And the authors recognize this - from TFA:

    "Cohort studies demonstrating association do not necessarily imply causality, but the preferable randomised controlled trial method for assessing hypnotic risks may be impractical due to ethical and funding limitations."

    It's well-known that sleep disturbances are correlated with higher mortality. This study could simply be uncovering that people who have sleep disturbances (and who are therefore in a higher mortality group) are more likely to ask for meds to help them sleep. Can't see that there's any big news here.

  34. Find the root cause not symptom treating. by unlocked · · Score: 2

    I just lived through six years of chronic insomnia and went down the whole path of doctors and pills. What it turned out to be was a undiagnosed heart arrhythmia caused by a untreated infection which was exasperated by fluroquinalone which almost killed me. It just shows that Doctors just collect a paycheck and push what ever pills big pharma claims works.( it took 6 years and about $300,000 in medical bills and completely wiped out my financials and credit) After getting on propafenone for the arrhythmia for 1 year my insomnia went away and my arrhythmia has went away. I had to revamp my diet and get rid of all stress from work and sleep 8-10 hours a night and I have about made a complete recovery. A recent medical paper has shown that a messed up circadian rhythm can cause all kinds of heart problems. This study just shows how little doctoring and how much pill pushing is done. They should be trying to find the root cause of the problem instead of trying treat the symptoms so you can get back to your slave to the grind job that is killing you.

  35. Btetta almost killed me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty healthy. The Doc put me on byetta to get my borderline glucose down. Everything else was fine until 8 months on byetta! I had a scare, microalbumin was at 1586! Microalbumin/Creatine ratio was at 800! I thought I was gonna loose the kidneys. I didn't wait for my Dr. to say stop taking it. When I got the results I didn't know it was the byetta. I did a search on the fda.gov website and found a warning about byetta. So I stopped taking it, stopped working out hard for a little. Bought some urine test strips and in a a few days it appeares that it healed since now I can't measure it. I told my wife that if the strip was blue or purple then we should look at selling the house. well.. at least the strip was only beige/pink ... normal. I get an official test this weekend. I hope the sticks are accurate and that the problem I was experiencing is gone. I'm going to workout hard this weekend to see if the reading goes up a little. I'm still scared actually. I'd rather be borderline diabetic. The risk of taking byetta isn't worth it.

  36. so death is okay if it pays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apparently cars sold in the US will be required to have rear-view cameras starting in 2014, because this will prevent about 200 "back-over" deaths/year.

    TFA puts the low estimate of "excess deaths per year" at 320,000.

    Clearly, Big Pharma can afford better lobbyists than Big Auto.

    1. Re:so death is okay if it pays? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Or this will prompt a change in the rules and regulations around hypnotic sleep aids...

  37. did Big Pharma already know about this? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    cue the mass tort lawyers - perhaps Big Pharma already knew about the problems and kept quiet, wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  38. Michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm watching you!!!!!

  39. Thoughts by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    My own 0.02 suggests that Big Pharma probably isn't completely blind to some of the problems behind sleeping medications. Addiction side effects no withstanding, there are thoughts that these medications could have diliterious effects on the brain's neurochemistry. The trouble with Big Pharma is that it has little or no interest in curing disease because there is no profit in it. The profit is in long term symptom mitigation and sleep medications are simply just that - mitigations. Sleep needs to be more throroughly researched, specifically in the areas of cellular repair which happens during said event. Maybe the cure is really diet, exercise, and learning techniques for stress control. Since starting Yoga, I've found I am naturally sleeping better.

  40. Death rate will never be 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people are alive so died/born will never be 100% because then there'd be nobody to count it.

  41. sleep is 100-million-year mammal core function by peter303 · · Score: 1

    And no one really understands why most mammals sleep. You monkey around with such a core function and you may effects side-effects.

  42. estrogen stops bone destruction by nido · · Score: 2

    ... but it also prevents new bone from growing. Progesterone - the natural kind (progesterone USP), NOT the kind in birth control (Provera) that was studied in the Women's Health Initiative - is what helps new bone get laid down.

    Progesterone is good on all counts. It's a hormone on its own, and the body converts it into other hormones, like testosterone and cortisol. This is why birth control takes away women's libido - fake progesterone ("progestins") CANNOT be converted into other hormones, which leads to a testosterone deficiency and low libido.

    If you have puffy veins when you stand and raise your hands 30-degrees from your legs, or have varicose veins in your legs, you're probably progesterone-deficient... There are lots of symptoms that respond nicely to progesterone therapy.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  43. Who still uses estrogen? by nido · · Score: 1

    I talked to a 60-something woman who used to have extreme fibromyalgia problems last weekend. Estrogen came up, and she said her doctors had put her on it years ago. She was in the hospital within a week.

    There's a PDF floating about the Estrogen Scam... Let's see... Ah, here it is:
    The Rise and Fall of Estrogen Therapy: The History of HRT

    This was written by a harvard law student, and basically finds that the estrogen hucksters are criminally negligent.

    My most recent blog post is the start of a series about problems with chemical birth control pills. I thought it'd be good to start out with why they're so expensive, but I've since realized that staying baby-free is much more important to most women than the cost, or the side effects...

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Who still uses estrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're underestimating how expensive not staying baby-free is.

  44. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% of people who use sleeping pills die. Eventually. So does everyone else.

  45. My mother in law by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

    uses sleeping pills every night. Darn.

  46. not so fast on the melatonin, dude. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Informative

    I showed your post to an MD, who said that while everything you asserted is more or less true, what you failed to assert far outweighs the value of the information you did provide. Melatonin has documented negative interactions with Coumadin, Warfarin, and Aspirin, which are widely prescribed anti-coagulants. Melatonin will also nullify the effects of any corticosteriods you happen to be on. So -- do us all a favor, eh, and don't leave off the bad parts just because you are a fanboi of the good parts.

    1. Re:not so fast on the melatonin, dude. by RobCull · · Score: 2

      I showed your post to an MD, who said that while everything you asserted is more or less true, what you failed to assert far outweighs the value of the information you did provide. Melatonin has documented negative interactions with Coumadin, Warfarin, and Aspirin, which are widely prescribed anti-coagulants. Melatonin will also nullify the effects of any corticosteriods you happen to be on. So -- do us all a favor, eh, and don't leave off the bad parts just because you are a fanboi of the good parts.

      I never claimed to be an expert. I wasn't aware of those side effects, because they do not apply to me. Additionally, if you want to know more about it, go look it up yourself (visit your local library :P). Also, you should always talk to your doctor before taking new medications (as is written on the package).

      While we're nit-picking, I also failed to mention that women who are pregnant shouldn't take Melatonin. Oops.

      You incorrectly assume that I am "leaving out the bad parts because I'm a fanboi of the good parts." Those were not my motivations.

      Next time, feel free to simply add your additional insight as a reply, leaving out the baseless assumptions and accusations.

    2. Re:not so fast on the melatonin, dude. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Coumadin, Warfarin" which are the same thing (warfarin is the generic name). The common name is "rat poison."

    3. Re:not so fast on the melatonin, dude. by GNULinuxGuy · · Score: 1

      It also apparently can't be used effectively at all by some people. I've tried all different dosages and timings, and never could find the "sweet spot" for me. My guess is it's more useful for jet lag than anything else given my experiences.

      --
      Earn Cash and Prizes, and get free stuff!
  47. welp, by P-niiice · · Score: 1

    I don't use them because I'm scared of something that puts me to sleep against my system's "will".
    I am vindicated.

  48. Pharma Industry by hackus · · Score: 1

    You know I track this stuff as my father died of cancer, so I am rather keenly aware when new cancer treatments pop up.

    However, over the past 2 years I have noticed a trend that just about every major medication from cholsterol pills, to sexual disfunction to vaccines, have 3-5 times the elevated risk factors for people to die of cancer.

    If I didn't know any better the industry is astroturfing for patients to increase profits.

    -Hackus

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  49. If Any of Them Were Addicts... by ios+and+web+coder · · Score: 1

    ...such as alcohol addicts, it could have a great deal of effect on the study.

    Addicts, are, by nature, totally dishonest about their use. I have known many folks that took sleeping pills, and drank (even one beer is enough) on them.

    Very, very dangerous.

    Those of a "certain age" may remember this unfortunate young lady.

    --

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

    -H. L. Mencken

  50. Re:Those Hospitals May Be Killing You.... nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually the BEDS are the big killers! 99% of all people die in BED! They should be banned! What are our politicians doing about this?

  51. The prescription "sleep aids" I was prescribed.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    The prescription "sleep aids" I was prescribed didn't so spit! I kept asking and I kept getting bupkis! Nothing works like diphenhydramine (benadryl), works every time, but takes a while to kick in.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  52. Study biased by selection of "sleeping pill" by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

    What surprised me about the study was *which* sleeping pills the subjects were taking. #1 was Ambien, #2 was temazepam (which is a benzodiazepine-- same category as Valium, Ativan, Xanax, Klonopin etc.) And looking in the "supplemental data" section, it turns out that the other sleeping pills were either a) more benzodiazepenes, b) antihistamines like Benadryl, or c) barbiturates (which you'd have to be nuts to use for sleep).

    As someone who prescribes sleepers all the time, I was wondering why none of my preferred sleeping pills-- which would be trazodone, melatonin, doxepin, and maybe low-dose quetiapine-- were included. (I prefer them because I think they're the safest ones). It turns out that they excluded most of these because they were "dual use" medications. (E.g. trazodone is technically an antidepressant, doxepin is an antidepressant, quetiapine is FDA-approved as both an antidepressant and an antipsychotic). And melatonin was excluded (I guess) since it's technically considered a food supplement rather than a medication.

    So, in short, they excluded all the best choices and studied a bunch of sleeping pills that many would consider to be relatively problematic. It's not the only problem with the paper (or even the only serious problem), but it's a biggie.

    1. Re:Study biased by selection of "sleeping pill" by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      quetiapine causes diabetes!

      http://www.jabfm.org/content/16/3/251.full

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Study biased by selection of "sleeping pill" by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

      quetiapine causes diabetes!

      http://www.jabfm.org/content/16/3/251.full

      Yeah, I know! (It also can make you fat and can occasionally cause neurological side-effects). I was sort of expecting this question-- "how can you say quietiapine, AKA Seroquel, is one of the safer sleeping meds?"

      Well, three things-- first of all, notice that I specified low-dose. Usually like 25 mg, which is less than a tenth of the typical dose used for schizophrenia. In most cases 25 mg doesn't seem to cause obesity or diabetes. (You still monitor weight and glucose, of course, and you stop the med if things start to go south). Secondly, notice that I listed it fourth on the list and not first. (Actually it's fifth place because I forgot to list ramelteon). I don't need to resort to it all that often. And third... well, most of the other alternatives (Ambien, temazepam, etc.) are really pretty crappy. They're *addictive*, man.

  53. Fatal Familial Insomnia and Bipolar Disorder by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Lets assume, hypothetically, that we substitute the drugs in this study with medications used for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Assuming the aforementioned, we could reach exactly the same conclusions as this study did. So does that mean patients with bipolar disorder should stop taking their medications to live longer?

    It doesn't even factor in the fact that a large portion of patients suffering from neuropsychiatric conditions also have sleep disorders, whether it be treatment induced, co-morbid, or other reasons. It's also been conclusively proven that lack of sleep will inevitably kill a person, Fatal familial insomnia as the name implies is terminal.

    You can look at the data ten ways till Sunday, but no matter what you won't have enough to determine causality or even speculate why.

  54. Big Pharma screws its customers again... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Melatonin not only aids sleep, but inhibits a number of types of cancer. L-Trytophan is a naturally occurring amino acid found in warm milk and turkey, and it will help you fall into a very nice natural sleep with virtually no ill effects. So why is it, that instead of safe, effective inexpensive solutions to sleeplessness, all we have is poison provided by Big Pharma?

    Oh yeah... profit. Never mind!

  55. Opinion doesn't imply truth by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    The problem with experimental controls is even worse for the social sciences, yet we think that it is ok to pass laws at the Federal level that presume some social science hypotheses to be valid and others to be invalid. Understand that this isn't merely, "doing the best that we can" but is violating the consent of huge swaths of the population. In some cases, such as liberalizing immigration policy, it is violating the consent of the majority of the population and does so repeatedly over the course of decades.

    The "best that we can do" is give people choice: Let them migrate to territories shared by mutual consent that operate under the hypotheses in human ecology they believe in -- rather than ramming down their throats the considered opinions of top men, let alone the crazed inquisitions of morally vain church ladies of political correctness.

  56. Correlation is not causation... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    That being said, I'm still not going to take a prescription sleeping medication when I can just take a cheap and safe melatonin pill.

    I don't know of a single prescription sleeping drug that has a normalizing effect, helps prevent cancer, and makes you more healthy.

    I do know too many unhealthy people that can't read and comprehend a PDR listing that take any drug their told.