Posted on 03/07/2018 3:13:49 PM PST by heterosupremacist
video @link (1:12) I believe first and foremost in informed consent. If you are informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a given treatment, you will be empowered to make the best decision for yourself based on your personal, family, philosophical, and religious life context. But the truth is that prescribers are not in a position to share the known risks of medications because we learn only of their purported benefits with a short-tagline of dismissively rare risks that are thought to be invariably outweighed by the presenting clinical concern.
But what about serious risks – including impulsive suicide and homicide – surely we are informing patients of that possibility, right?
Wrong.
In fact, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple signals of harm so we certainly can’t expect your average prescriber to have done the investigative work required to get at the truth.
In fact, from 1999-2013, psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications[2]. So let’s review some of the evidence that suggests that it may not be in your best interest or the best interest of those around you for you to travel the path of medication-based psychiatry. Because, after all, if we don’t screen for risk factors – if we don’t know who will become the next victim of psych-med-induced violence – then how can we justify a single prescription? Are we at a point in the history of medicine where random acts of personal and public violence are defensible risks of treatment for stress, anxiety, depression, inattention, psychosocial distress, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and even stress incontinence?
(Excerpt) Read more at nexusnewsfeed.com ...
Where's Jimmy the Chinless Kimmel on this?
This is why I know that all the gun-control hand-wringing is disingenuous. There is no serious discussions about the impact these medications are having in mass school shootings. Instead the media are content in only focusing on “assault rifles” as the cause.
This is about taking down the NRA and weakening the Second Amendment, nothing more.
“If you have thoughts of suicide, consult your doctor,” is a very common admonition on these drugs. It’s not like anyone is hiding anything from you. If the risk outweighs the benefit for you, then don’t take the drugs.
We have to watch carefully what the Feds do here with psych meds.
First,the DEA could classify psych meds as class 5 controlled substances. Thus would put anti depressants, anti psychotics on State controlled substance databases.
Then, FEDs could require that background checks include a controlled substance database check. Patients on certain meds could be prohibited from getting a firearm or they could require a doctor’s clearance which might not happen or take some time.
We have to prempt this sort of attack on the second and 4th amendments at the State level. We need to make sure that no law enforcement agencies (State or Fed) can troll these medical records w/o a court order (and not some BS administrative warrant).
At this point, avoid psych providers like the plague.
My cardiologist said beta blockers were so beneficial, he thought they should be added to the water supply. I took them for a few days and had to stop. My blood pressure is always low, and like so many other drugs, a side effect of BB is to lower blood pressure, which is great for most other people.
Always read the label. It’s your life, not theirs.
grumpygresh wrote:
‘Patients on certain meds could be prohibited from getting a firearm...’ I understand your point, but as you well know, gun control legislation, assault weapons bans etc. will NEVER stop a psycho from getting illegal firearms...
Not because of their diagnoses, but rather the fact they are taking such toxins will lead eventually to a law prohibiting patients from legally acquire weapons (IMO).
After literally teaching himself code to decrypt the data on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System website, he was able to cull 2000 pediatric fatalities from psychotropic medications, and 700 homicides.
Pretty damning evidence?
You are correct!
The current standard, threat to self and others is correct
No new laws are needed, current law keeps firearms out of the hands of those who are a threat to others, my concern, and themselves.
Does it work, no, because the medical and educational communities largely refuse to step up and identify those individuals. No law will correct that.
IMO, I'd prefer to see an alcoholic get treatment, rather than refuse inpatient treatment to maintain his 2nd amendment rights.
The correlation between "mental illness" in the broad sense, and violence is low. Every suburbanite seeing a shrink is not a threat. Any more than every vet seeking VA treatment is. It's political "we have to do something" nonsense. The problem lies with those responsible for enforcing legislation on the books.
Two things that could be done, though I suspect they're largely state issues.
Immunity from lawsuits for professionals making the danger diagnosis.
A timely appeals process to restore 2nd amendment rights. Currently it's a lifetime ban. I'm not sure someone who attempts suicide and is treated deserves a lifetime ban, there should be a reassessment process.
I'll add a third, perhaps for those who are a danger the distinction between involuntary and voluntary admission should be addressed. Currently voluntary falls between the cracks.
Weigh the incidence of substantiated drug reactions ending in death (a far cry from all the ones claimed by amateur enthusiasts) against the tens of millions of people who have taken these drugs safely and with good effect.
Thank you. I have said many times that Zoloft saved my life. And I don't say that tongue in cheek. It also provides me a better quality of life. The anti antidepressant folks can flame all they like, but there are millions of people who take these drugs and don't kill anybody.
“My cardiologist said beta blockers were so beneficial, he thought they should be added to the water supply.”
Good grief, my quack alarm went off when I read that. Those drugs can cause depression. Is he in denial of that side effect?
Beats me. I realized that I was not seen as an individual with unique features but something called a patient.
Similarly, I was given a chemical stress test, as opposed to nuclear, that had the effect of nearly knocking me unconscious. As I put my head down to try to get blood flow back to my brain, he kept telling me to keep me head up, which made matters worse. I’d dump him if there was a cardiologist closer to where I live, but I’ve noticed the same tendencies with my GP. Aside from surgeons, I don’t have much respect for medical practitioners.
One quack doctor put me on a high dosage beta blocker. Side effect: I could not exercise. I use to race bicycles before I went on that.
“But everyone your age should be taking these drugs”
“At your age, you should have more realistic expectations.”
Yet peer review now shows that beta blockers should not be anywhere near first choice medication for hypertension. They have there place, heart failure, post heart attack, etc.
It’s the same with statins, where some doctors are prescribing statins to patients above a certain age - and having low cholesterol - as a “preventative measure”. Statins have there place, yet are prescribed nearly indiscriminately.
I changed doctors to one who would rather see me back on the bike more, and tends to be conservative as far as prescribing medications - dietary changes first if possible. His view was if I am that physically active, beta blockers would be counterproductive.
Agree with your points. We do need involuntary admission, first for the 72 your assessment, then a longer involuntary stay to assess compliance to any therapy (drug, drug free) that restores “sanity.”
It isn’t “freedom” to leave a four year old on the streets, or a person with Alzheimer’s or untreated schizophrenia. We need to supervise people who can’t be rational enough to be considered an adult.
Good grief, my quack alarm went off when I read that. Those drugs can cause depression. Is he in denial of that side effect?
He should get together with a psychiatrist I know who thinks lithium is so great it should be added to the water supply.
Try to find a sports medicine doctor.
I have been finding that in Europe, cardiac rehab is done differently. Here in the US, it’s just 3 months of the lowest common denominator, and that’s it, take it easy for the rest of your life (just be happy with getting by). There was a study at Methodist Hospital (Houston, TX), where after the conventional rehab, some patients were taken under the wing of a cycling coach who has experience working with pro cyclists (no doping, EPO, etc). Just a basic conditioning program where after 18 months the patients would be riding the MS150 from Houston to Austin. All completed the ride. The patients were then re-evaluated, and the cardiologists were hard press to find any indication of heart damage.
The bulk of the training program was base conditioning around Zone 1/Zone 2 heart rate. Believe it or not, pro cyclist do a lot of their base training miles at this level. At that low intensity, a lot of capillarization takes place, where the increased circulation builds up muscle conditioning. Of course with the heart being a muscle, this results in a lot of tissue repair.
Keep in mind that this program was done supervised by the cardiology department at Methodist. There has been a white paper published based on this program. It has not been widely accepted mostly due to resistance in the profession.
I spent all sorts of money getting a brain scan after seeing double. They found an old “micro stroke” and were all freaked out about that. The eye doctor checked my eyes - and said “Yeah - your’re getting older, harder to focus - here’s some new glasses.”
My regular doctor asked me why I was taking the heart medicine (something-statin). I told him about the micro-stroke, but he said my blood pressure, cholestrial, etc. was good - and I didn’t need it. “Well - the baby aspirin once a day won’t hurt - but you don’t need the statin.”
I found out later via FR all of the problems with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.