WTF is wrong with this world(revisited)?

[Cobra]

And on that note, we get this thread back "on track"...

[Capmaster]

Yes. Sorry for the mini-threadjack there

[vitualis]

losec7 sounds like a repackage of Prilosec omeprazole . It will cure you of GERD if you take it for the rest of your life, just as most other medicines will, IF you take them for the rest of your life.

I think that you are mixing up your diseases. GERD or GORD (as in oesophageal ) is a completely separate disease to peptic ulcer disease.

"Losec" is omeprazole.

"Losec Hp7" is a 7 day pack of omeprazole + amoxycillin + clarithromycin which is used for H. pylori eradication. People generally take this for one week, plus a few additional weeks of omeprazole.

The best treatment for GORD is a proton pump inhibitor like omeprazole (which is off patent). There is no cure. Most people will only have it intermittently so you generally don't need to take it long term. Lifestyle factors are important too (eat less spicy food, drink less alcohol and smoke less).

Are you sure all you get is the straight skinny? Both are peddled by Astra Zenica.You just might be less erudite, as to medication, than you think you are.

Astra Zeneca wants people to use esomeprazole (i.e., Nexium) rather than omeprazole because it isn't off patent. You can get omeprazole cheaply and from many different manufacturers. They even have a somewhat dodgey trial that shows that esomeprazole is better than omeprazole...

Regards.

[Capmaster]

I've been taking omeprazole (Prilosec OTC in the US) for a little over a year now for GE(O)RD. I never had the endoscopy done that the doc recommended because if the symptoms aren't obvious, the doc needs a new line of work instead of prescribing expensive and uncomfortable procedures.

The symptoms are(were) killer heartburn, especially at night, that didn't depend on what I had eaten, but was worse for some things like corned beef and other fatty foods. It got severe when I tried to get to sleep and many times I would drift off just to be awakened by the panicky feeling that someone was using a blowtorch on my throat - the stomach contents would flow up and sometimes into my nose A few times I couldn't breathe and was choking bad. It's terrible to wake up to that :P

I had been popping Tagamet or Zantac, with a chaser of two Gaviscon tablets every evening before bed. It'd work for a while, but it never lasted long.

I had even considered a new procedure where they drop a microwave emitter down your throat and irradiate the tissue at the stomach opening, forcing it to turn to scar tissue and pucker. The other alternative was surgery where they tie off the area like a drawstring on a trash bag. Both procedures have their side effects, like not being able to eat solid food again for a while :P

Enter the FDA's OTC approval for Prilosec ....exit the problem. They say to only take it for 2 weeks to let the esophageal tissue heal and halt its path to mutating into stomach tissue (cancer issues there). But every time I try to stop, it comes right back.

Research into omeprazole shows that there have been 11-year studies done for ill effects, and nothing serious has been reported so far. So I'm on it for life I just ordered (4) 42-tablet packs online because there was a shortage in the stores due to the mfg. stopping shipments temporarily. I never want to be without it again 8)

Every evening I light incense and chant in front of my Prilosec altar, paying homage to its inventors. It works that well

[ViRaL1]

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?

[gmatov]

And much as he'd like to be a martyr by being banned, he's done nothing to deserve that. wink.gif

Why, thank you. I'd not have expected that response.

Where are all these posts where I was wrong, and you pointed out my errors?

Never mind, you intimated they are manifold, so ignore that ?.

(Offtopic, but the "baby bombs" actually weigh, I forget,164 or 264 pounds. Not what I would call a suitcase bomb, nor would I think it has such a blast effect as to level a city. I think they range from .18 KT, ie 180 tons of TNT equivalent, up to 1 KT.)

Back to the matter at hand. Omeprazole or Esomeprazole Magnesium, what's the difference, other than one is off patent, and the other still brings in megabucks?

"Before starting any new medicine, either prescription or over-the-counter, check with your doctor or pharmacist. If Nexium gives you an allergic reaction, or you've ever had an allergic reaction to Prilosec, you will not be able to use this medication."

That cut/paste seems to say they are as close as can be, If I can't take this, I can't take that.

Google them both. Check them out. Does not seem to be a dime'sworth of difference in their result. Prilosec is, however, cheaper, at 189 bucks for 30 caps.

Where I was wrong, one time, was when I said it was a 1500 a year habit. Site I was just on had the reduced price for 30 capsules, 20 mg, 199 bucks. So I guess it's a 2400 a year habit. My goodness, 6 bucks 66 cents a pop.

Isn't it horrifying to see the drug companies come to the fore with their own answer to h.pylori's eradication? Not a 20 buck shot and pill regimen, but a 2400 a year regimen, plus a shot?

Too many doctors still treat it that way, whether they are too dumb or misguided, or for the rewards from the drug pusher.

Michael, what is the pH of the typical stomach?

Cheers,

George

[tweedledee]

Gee, Drugs are expensive in the states. I just bought a box of them for $4.50.US for 30 tabs. Even if I had to pay the full price it would only be $38.50. US. Come to OZ George, and live it up.

[vitualis]

Esomeprazole is supposedly better than omeprazole in terms of the percentage of people getting relief from symptomatic GORD. I can go into why that trial is flawed but in any case, I personally don't think that there is a lot of difference between the two.

George, as I said before, PPIs most commonly now used for GORD, not H. pylori eradication.

Capmaster, most proton pump inhibitors in Australia are under the PBS and there are none that are OTC. In any case, it wouldn't be particularly expensive to see a GP and get a presciption for a PPI here.

BTW, why didn't your GP prescribe you a PPI? (i.e., why did you have to wait till an OTC version was available?) If anyone was thinking of performing a Nissan fundoplication, then you should definitely have a gastroscopy first.

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Esomeprazole is supposedly better than omeprazole in terms of the percentage of people getting relief from symptomatic GORD. I can go into why that trial is flawed but in any case, I personally don't think that there is a lot of difference between the two.

George, as I said before, PPIs most commonly now used for GORD, not H. pylori eradication.

Capmaster, most proton pump inhibitors in Australia are under the PBS and there are none that are OTC. In any case, it wouldn't be particularly expensive to see a GP and get a presciption for a PPI here.

BTW, why didn't your GP prescribe you a PPI? (i.e., why did you have to wait till an OTC version was available?) If anyone was thinking of
performing a Nissan fundoplication, then you should definitely have a gastroscopy first.

Regards.

The GP prescribed Tagamet and later Zantac. Worked for a few hours, then ...nothing. I had to supplement with Gaviscon (antacid). The doc wanted to schedule an endoscopy, but everything I have read about GERD says the symptoms I had were unmistakeable ....worse in the evening, occasional reflux up the esophagus to the mouth/nose, general ineffectiveness of regular OTC and non-PPI medications. Classic.

That's why Sept. 2003 was such a red-letter day for me. Prilosec went OTC and the price dropped from as much as $2-3 per pill for the prescription stuff to 50 cents a pill for the OTC. And it's the same composition/strength as the prescription stuff. It hasn't been diluted like so many other OTC drugs.

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?

Ummm ...no. Not when they're needed. I find that taking Prilosec every day is much better for my overall well-being than walking across the room and getting doubled over with the pain in my midsection ...or laying there with my gut burning so bad that I finally give in and go downstairs and mix a heaping teaspoon of baking soda in a glass of water and chug it down.

By the way, that's one of the nastiest-tasting things you can swallow Then I belch like Ralph on the Simpsons for about an hour until the gas stops getting generated. Funny, but it gets old.

Offtopic, but the "baby bombs" actually weigh, I forget,164 or 264 pounds

The Davy Crockett with the W54 warhead weighed 76 pounds:

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/cw3.cfm

[gmatov]

Michael,

You are confusing me. PPIs? When did they come in? And, just what in the hell is a PPI? What is the pH of the normal stomach? Just how much gastric acid should the stomach hold?

The reason I ask, is a friend, some years ago, was scheduled for surgery for bleeding ulcers. He went into how they stuck a tube into his stomach and, over a period of an hour or three, produced 5 measures, I forget if it was cups or what, of gastric fluids. Now, reasonably, if the stomach should have a normal, empty, capacity of, say, one cup, and you drain it, the brain will tell the stomach, or whatever is the controlling factor, to get it back up to one cup. Correct?

Regardless, when I advised him of h. pylori, and that he should be tested, he did enquire of his Doctor. The test was performed, he was treated with antibiotic and bismuth,and was "cured", ie, no surgery. One happy Union President. (Though it did not warrant me a sinecure.)

Several others I have advised to ask for the test, also scheduled for gastric surgery, same story.

QED, it obviously is the treatment of choice, but of course it is much cheaper than gastric surgery orZantac or whatever for the rest of your life.

Cap,

This may have no bearing on you, but a friend of mine, with severe "GERD", in his case supposedly due to a hiatal hernia, has put 2 bricks under the feet at the headboard of his bed, raises his upper body so the gastric fluids do not enter his (o)esophogeal tube. He is happy. Two bricks are about 4 3/4 inches. 3 little chunks of 2X4 would do the same.

Worth a try, whether the drugs are affordable or no.

Cheers,

George

[vitualis]

You are confusing me. PPIs? When did they come in? And, just what in the hell is a PPI?

Proton pump inhibitor. These are a class of medications that include things like omeprazole.

What is the pH of the normal stomach? Just how much gastric acid should the stomach hold?

You are looking for a simplistic answer here and there isn't one. The pH of the stomach changes depending on when you last ate. The amount of "gastric acid" that it holds it irrelevant as liquid stomach contents are quickly drained into the small bowel. Similarly, when you eat, your stomach produces acid "on-the-fly".

The reason I ask, is a friend, some years ago, was scheduled for surgery for bleeding ulcers. He went into how they stuck a tube into his stomach and, over a period of an hour or three, produced 5 measures, I forget if it was cups or what, of gastric fluids. Now, reasonably, if the stomach should have a normal, empty, capacity of, say, one cup, and you drain it, the brain will tell the stomach, or whatever is the controlling factor, to get it back up to one cup. Correct?

Um no.

If there is something drain (e.g., if you have small bowel obstruction), the amount that is trapped will drain out initially. If they only drained out something slowly over hours, that doesn't mean a whole lot. Your stomach is constant producing fluid. If I stick a tube into YOUR stomach and put it on continuous suction, I'll probably get a few hundred millilitres over a 24 hours too.

Regardless, when I advised him of h. pylori, and that he should be tested, he did enquire of his Doctor. The test was performed, he was treated with antibiotic and bismuth,and was "cured", ie, no surgery. One happy Union President. (Though it did not warrant me a sinecure.)

Um, surgery for peptic ulcer disease generally stopped a LONG time ago. It would really only be considered if you had some sort of complication from the peptic ulcer disease (e.g., perforation, uncontrolled bleeding). Most bleeding ulcers can be controlled endoscopically in any case.

Several others I have advised to ask for the test, also scheduled for gastric surgery, same story.

I can barely think of any situation where gastric surgery for ulcers would be planned without a gastroscopy being done first. And in gastroscopy, they would take tissue biopsies and look for H. pylori (which is more accurate than the urease breath test). Something in your story doesn't ring true, or you are missing some big important detail in your vignette.

This may have no bearing on you, but a friend of mine, with severe "GERD", in his case supposedly due to a hiatal hernia, has put 2 bricks under the feet at the headboard of his bed, raises his upper body so the gastric fluids do not enter his (o)esophogeal tube. He is happy. Two bricks are about 4 3/4 inches. 3 little chunks of 2X4 would do the same.

Or the symptoms may have simply gotten better by themselves. Or he could have just stayed erect (e.g., sitting in a chair, walking around) for two hours after a meal...

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Cap,

This may have no bearing on you, but a friend of mine, with severe "GERD", in his case supposedly due to a hiatal hernia, has put 2 bricks under the feet at the headboard of his bed, raises his upper body so the gastric fluids do not enter his (o)esophogeal tube. He is happy. Two bricks are about 4 3/4 inches. 3 little chunks of 2X4 would do the same.

Worth a try, whether the drugs are affordable or no.

Thanks George. I had tried that, but not using that method. I used pads under my upper body. I didn't use it long enough to really tell if it worked or not because I felt like I was sleeping on a hill side

I couldn't get comfortable. I'm one of those people who has to have "just the right position" to get to sleep and the elevated upper body was making me miserable because I cannot sleep on my back and the elevation is uncomfortable face-down

[hech54]

Coming next from Michael Moore: Sicko, the film

He doesn't do undercover. And he is not someone who easily melts into the background.
But when an industry thinks it is about to become the latest target of the film maker Michael Moore, precautions have to be taken.

According to the Los Angeles Times, at least six of America's largest pharmaceutical firms have issued internal notices to their workforces warning them to be on the lookout for "a scruffy guy in a baseball cap" who asks too many questions.

Rotund and amiable he may seem, but this could be Moore, digging for dirt for his new movie, provisionally entitled Sicko.

Having watched the Bush administration and the gun lobby come a cropper in Moore's last two works, the pharma giants are not taking any risks.

"We ran a story in our online newspaper saying Moore is embarking on a documentary - and if you see a scruffy guy in a baseball cap, you'll know who it is," Stephen Lederer, a spokesman for Pfizer Global Research and Development, told the LA Times.

Five other big companies have told employees that any approach by Moore should be rebuffed and referred to the company's corporate communications department.

"Moore's past work has been marked by negativity, so we can only assume it won't be a fair and balanced portrayal," said Rachel Bloom, executive director of corporate communications at AstraZeneca, which is based in Delaware. "His movies resemble docudramas more than documentaries."

The US pharmaceutical industry has been criticised in recent months for being undercut by cheaper Canadian equivalents.

Some well-known drugs have been taken off the market after they were shown to have serious side effects.

"We have an image problem - not only with Michael Moore, but with the general public," said MJ Fingland, senior director of communications for the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Rumours are already swirling within an industry that is becoming paranoid about Moore's movie-making tactics.

Moore, it is said, has hired actors to portray pharmaceutical salesmen who offer gifts to doctors who promote their products.

There is also word that he has offered physicians $50,000 (nearly £26,000) apiece to install secret cameras in their offices in an effort to document alleged corruption.

Ms Bloom said Moore had been spotted at all six of her business centres nationwide. "Michael Moore is becoming an urban legend."

[Capmaster]

It's difficult to discuss Michael Moore without the thread becoming political.

So ....I'll lock this down if the subject swings away from filmmakers' undercover operations and movies, and heads towards political land

And I think Moore should go undercover as someone seeking stomach-stapling surgery ...nobody would question his motives then

[hech54]

It's a shame that there are nutballs who will not believe anything the future movie has to say just because his name is attached to it.
Half will believe....half will not. Pharmaceutical companies have NEVER had the general public's health in mind. That's about as stupid as saying "We're the FDA - we're here to help".

[rhegedus]

Esomeprazole is supposedly better than omeprazole in terms of the percentage of people getting relief from symptomatic GORD. I can go into why that trial is flawed but in any case, I personally don't think that there is a lot of difference between the two.

I wrote a paper on this a few years back. The best evidence that supports Esomeprazole over Omeprazole or Lansoprazole is when the dose of Esomeprazole is doubled in comparison to the rest i.e. Eso 40mg od vs Omep 20 mg od. Sure Esomeprazole comes out better, but since the dose/response curve for PPIs is very similar, it's not really a surprise.

[rhegedus]

It's a shame that there are nutballs who will not believe anything the future movie has to say just because his name is attached to it.

Given his past history, you'd have to be a nutball to believe anything he says without checking it first.

Half will believe....half will not. Pharmaceutical companies have NEVER had the general public's health in mind. That's about as stupid as saying "We're the FDA - we're here to help".

Has any company ever had the general public's health in mind? Just like any other company, they have a product which they want to sell for the best price. To think otherwise is naive.

[trock]

Some related stats:

* The third highest cause of deaths in the US is what is termed "iatrogenic", which means "induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy." This accounts for an estimated 225,000 deaths per annum which is about 10% of total deaths from all causes including old age. Of these, 12,000 deaths result from unnecessary surgery. The highest cause of deaths in the US is heart disease (725,000) and the 2nd highest is cancer (549,000), neither of which existed 150 years ago.

* 180,000 deaths a year occur due to adverse reactions to prescription medications. By comparison, general accidents in life account for 98,000 per annum. This includes 42,000 from car accidents, 120 from airline crashes**, 90 from being struck by lightning** and 5 from Anthrax (in 2001). 15,500 die from murders and 20,000 from flu or its complications.

**averaged over 2-3 decades

* An estimated 2 million people a year (11% of those admitted) catch infections in hospitals that they didn't have when they were admitted and approximately 90,000 of them die from these infections. An approximate list in order of likelihood is: urinary tract infections (34%), surgical site infections (17%), respiratory infections especially pneumonia (13%), blood infections/bacteremia (14%), skin (especially burns), gastrointestinal tract infections, and central nervous system infections.

* About 2,216,000 annual hospitalizations result in adverse drug reactions and these account for 106,000 deaths annually.

* Side effects of commonly used over the counter pain relievers include gastric ulcers, bleeding stomachs, hospitalizations and 16,500 deaths last year.

[vitualis]

Yes hospitals are dangerous places.

You have to take it into context though. People who get admitted into hospital are sick. Chances are if they didn't get admitted, they would have died at home.

Firstly, heart disease did exist 150 years ago and so did cancer. I don't know where you got that funny idea that they didn't. They probably weren't the leading causes of death though and the reason is simple. These are diseases that you develop as you get older. 150 years ago, I'm sure that one of the leading causes of death would have been from some sort of infective illness. It would be unusual for an otherwise young health person to die from a infection now.

Now with people "dying from prescription medicines". That again is taken out of context. The vast majority of these deaths are in older people and these medications are necessary for their quality of life. For example, a fatal gastrointestinal bleed from NSAIDs would be considered an adverse drug reaction. However, could you really have denied that person antiinflammatory tablets if they had osteoarthritis? The answer is no.

Similarly, a fatal bleed for somebody with atrial fibrillation on warfarin is an adverse drug reaction. However, if they weren't on warfarin, they would have probably died much earlier from a stroke.

Most of these numbers are somewhat misleading and what they really indicate is as people reach the end of their lives, it is often very medicalised. More often than not, "iatrogenic death" is simply a reflection of failure of modern medicine to prolong that person's life any longer.

@ rhegedus: I know the trial. Esomeprazole 40 mg vs omeprazole 20 mg (and lansoprazole 30 mg). Now call me a cynic, but that trial was timed around when omeprazole came off patent and both Nexium and Losec are owned by Astra-Zeneca... Dodgy.

Regards.

[trock]

These are the sources of the statistical information:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (National Center for Health Statistics), Deaths: Final Data for 1997. National Vital Statistics Reports: Deaths: Leading Causes for 1999. Volume 49, Number 11, October 12, 2001
Institute of Medicine (IOM), "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System", 2000
Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, Is US Health Really the Best in the World?, JAMA, Volume 284, No. 4, July 26, 2000
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5
JAMA / volume:279 (page: 1216) Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? David W. Bates, MD, MSc April 15, 1998
EILEEN G. HOLLAND, PHARM.D., and FRANK V. DEGRUY, M.D. Drug-Induced Disorders, Volume 15, No. 7, November 1, 1997
Phillips DP, Christenfeld N, Glynn LM. Lancet 1998 Feb 28;351(9103):643-4 Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993
National Academies, "Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes" November 29, 1999, (press release)
Richard J. Bonnie, Carolyn E. Fulco, Catharyn T. Liverman, Editors; Committee on Injury Prevention and Control, Institute of Medicine, Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment
Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563.
National Patient Safety Foundation at the AMA: Public Opinion of Patient Safety Issues, Louis Harris & Associates, September 1997

Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:

13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall 14
11th for postneonatal mortality
13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
10th for age-adjusted mortality

The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

It was also observed that people on 3 medications have a statistically 50% chance of ending up in hospital with "complications" and people on 5 or more have a 100% chance.

The bottom line is that whenever you suppress a symptom (as medications do) you condemn the person to new, often far worse, symptoms. And if you put the person on medications early in life, far from prolonging their life, you often shorten it considerably. There are safer alternatives but the pharmacutical company sales reps (1 for each of the top-20% prescribing doctors) don't encourage doctors to explore them.

The primary failure in "modern" medicine, particularly in the US, is to recognize and treat causes and to recognize the part played by FDA-approved "foods" in many of the symptoms that they try to suppress with drugs.

[rhegedus]

The bottom line is that whenever you suppress a symptom (as medications do) you condemn the person to new, often far worse, symptoms. And if you put the person on medications early in life, far from prolonging their life, you often shorten it considerably. There are safer alternatives but the pharmacutical company sales reps (1 for each of the top-20% prescribing doctors) don't encourage doctors to explore them.

The primary failure in "modern" medicine, particularly in the US, is to recognize and treat causes and to recognize the part played by FDA-approved "foods" in many of the symptoms that they try to suppress with drugs.

This really has to be the biggest crock of shit I've ever read

If modern medicine is so bad for people, how come the average life expectancy has increased?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

[trock]

If modern medicine is so bad for people, how come the average life expectancy has increased?

Average life expectancy stats don't reflect the quality of those medicated lives.

[bazooka]

"on track"...

What is that? :P

[rhegedus]

If modern medicine is so bad for people, how come the average life expectancy has increased?

Average life expectancy stats don't reflect the quality of those medicated lives.

I thought you wrote that lives were 'often shortened considerably'.

Have you got any data on QOLS to make your judgement? How about the black hypertensive diabetic who now lives long enough to see his grandchildren? What's his quality of life like?

[housepig]

It was also observed that people on 3 medications have a statistically 50% chance of ending up in hospital with "complications" and people on 5 or more have a 100% chance.

what is the statistical chance of someone with the same ailment, who does not take medication for it, ending up in the hospital?

[vitualis]

As what I wrote before. trock, are obviously failing to make the correct interpretation of those statistics.

If modern medications are killing people at a vast rate, then the average life expectancy will go down, not up.

The reason they have gone up so much in the last century is a combination of public health initiatives (e.g., sewerage, clean water) as well as modern medications.

As such, people are no longer dying as commonly from things like trivial infections. People are often not even dying of cancer, heart attacks or strokes per se as having one of these conditions is no longer a death sentence with modern medications. However, you can only prolong life so far and towards the end of life, many people are seriously unwell. In that state, yes, often it is some sort of "iatrogenic" cause that kills them. However, without modern medicine, that person would have more than likely died long ago.

People who take more medications have a greater chance of being admitted to hospital because they are sicker. THAT should be pretty darn obvious.

Regards.

[trock]

What is the statistical chance of someone with the same ailment, who does not take medication for it, ending up in the hospital?

Interestingly enough, a 1992 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure.

Source: Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, et al.: Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 277(6): 467-471, 1997.

That said, there are safer alternatives to most problems that medications, with their litany of side-effects, are prescribed for.

[trock]

People who take more medications have a greater chance of being admitted to hospital because they are sicker.

I agree, far sicker than if they had taken something safer than many current medications.

One flaw in the average life expectancy argument is that per the latest government report on US health (2 December 2004), the majority of those in the statistic - 61% of men and 51% of women - are not taking medications. However even these statistics are deceptive, just as the average life expectancy statistic are because, like the average life expectancy statistic, they change by age group.

For instance, part of the increased average life expectancy statistic includes a great decrease in infant mortality rates due to better hygiene and public health measures (although the US still has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the world amongst the industrial nations). Another part of the statistic is drugs which can prevent death but often at the expense of prolonged and increased suffering (side effects).

P.S. Even though we obviously disagree on some issues, Happy New Year everybody!

[vitualis]

What is the statistical chance of someone with the same ailment, who does not take medication for it, ending up in the hospital?

Interestingly enough, a 1992 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure.

Source: Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, et al.: Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 277(6): 467-471, 1997.

That said, there are safer alternatives to most problems that medications, with their litany of side-effects, are prescribed for.

It should be noted that that view is no longer supported. That study was also 10 years ago which is a long time in the medical world.

Prostate cancer is a hard one because a lot of people who have it will not necessarily die from it. The reason? Prostate cancer is common and people tend to be older when they get it. Chances are they'll die from something like a heart attack or stroke first.

However, you also have to examine the trial data.

People who tend to have a procedure done for their prostate cancer generally have more advanced cancer.

People who opt for the "watch and wait" approach generally have less advanced cancer.

In essence, you have a selection bias --> thus the apparent result that people who have conservative therapy seem to "do better"!

Most trials would show you that you have decreased mortality with therapy (i.e., surgery/radiotherapy) for prostate cancer (beyond a certain stage) compared to conservative treatment.

I agree, far sicker than if they had taken something safer than many current medications.

Okay, the next time YOU get a pneumonia, refuse to take any antibiotics. Your family will think of you as pretty stupid when you die from a perfectly treatable illness.

One flaw in the average life expectancy argument is that per the latest government report on US health (2 December 2004), the majority of those in the statistic - 61% of men and 51% of women - are not taking medications. However even these statistics are deceptive, just as the average life expectancy statistic are because, like the average life expectancy statistic, they change by age group.

What are you talking about? Of course a lot of people aren't taking regular medications. You generally only start taking regular medications on a lifelong basis when you start developing some sort of chronic illness (which for most people is when they get older).

For instance, part of the increased average life expectancy statistic includes a great decrease in infant mortality rates due to better hygiene and public health measures (although the US still has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the world amongst the industrial nations). Another part of the statistic is drugs which can prevent death but often at the expense of prolonged and increased suffering (side effects).

Umm... what are you going on about? Average life expanctancy is exactly what it sounds like. The average age when people die. I can't quite remember, but I don't think infant mortality counts towards the average life expectancy (I think you have to live past the age of 5 years first -- otherwise you get an unrealistic skew in the numbers).

Yes, drugs prolong life and they have side-effects. How about you do something worthwhile with your new found wisdom and go visit every person over the age of 70 in hospital and convince them that the medications that are keeping them alive and often improving their quality of life is actually just stretching out the inevitable and that they should just go home and accept death. It would certainly make my job a lot easier!

I'm sorry, but laypeople shouldn't try to interpret and make conclusions about medical trials and studies or health statistics. More often than not, you do not have the context behind it to interpret it properly. Hell, most doctors don't have enough training statistics either though we usually at least understand the CONTEXT.

Regards.

[trock]

Thanks for your feedback, Michael.

We could probably argue back and forth for weeks but one thing I've found in nearly 2 decades of research into this area for my upcoming book (and working with many medical doctors who share my views), is that there really is no point in arguing these issues if a person doesn't wish to give any credence to the possibility that there is some truth in the hundreds of books, thousands of web pages, increasing numbers of recent TV exposes or current Congressional investigations into the drug companies withholding extremely damaging information in order to protect profits and satisfy their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders etc. etc..

So, while I've enjoyed these discussions, I'm going to bow out at this point and go back to the (for me) more fun video activities.

For anyone interested in opening their minds to look beyond the daily drug company TV and magazine brainwashing, here is a good start:

http://www.drugsandyourmind.com/study.html

While its main focus is on destructive psychiatric drugs, it also covers the non-psychiatric medication situation.

See you around the other forums.