I take far too many drugs for my liking, but then it's better then being depress with chronic pain that has me near bedridden. Before I came down with Chronic illnesses, I would never take drugs unless I develop an bad back pain or headache and the occasional treatment for hives and rashes, or infections.
I'm one of the people who as a kid was accident prone, so my mom had to keep a bottle of Benadyl in the medicine cabinet at all times. The only time she agree with the doctor that we had to go on anti-biologics was when my little brother had scarlet fever. She was allergic to Penicillin so didn't want to risk any of us having a reaction. Since 2 of us already were allergic to bee stings and poison ivy, she didn't need anymore headaches.
Now I'm on 4 different medicines daily and have another for pain to take as needed. One is for depression, that is good also for the fibromyalgia and menopause. I take neurontin for the fibro pain instead of the newer drug with the commercial I can't stand, but then it helps with mood too. Then due to the fibro, I can't get a good nights sleep without taking Ambien CR.
I am suppose to take Gemfibrozil for my cholesterol, but never could get in the habit of taking it before meals, so gone with diet changes. Thankfully it seems to be working as my cholesterol is lower last time it was checked. Thank goodness I love oatmeal and Cheerios are a great snack right out of the box.
I still have to worry about the occasional accident and hive outbreaks, so keep a epi-pen and benedyl with me all the time. Older I get the more things I find I can't eat or be around due to allergies. Thankfully Imported beers and micro-brews tend to be safe, while a small glass of wine hasn't been a problem as long as there are no other bi-sulfite's in the food.
Sadly my last accidental bite of crab meat, reminds me to be careful of what I eat and how much I wish I wasn't allergic to crabs, though not to shrimp and lobster.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Let's Get Personal
Let's Get PersonalFollow
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Quote:
Common Side Effects
Headache
Constipation
Diarrhea
Gas
Upset stomach and stomach pain
Rash
Muscle and joint pain
Serious Side Effects
LIPITOR can cause serious side effects. These side effects have happened only to a small number of people. Your doctor can monitor you for them. These side effects usually go away if your dose is lowered or LIPITOR is stopped. These serious side effects include:
Muscle problems. LIPITOR can cause serious muscle problems that can lead to kidney problems, including kidney failure. You have a higher chance for muscle problems if you are taking certain other medicines with LIPITOR.
Liver problems. LIPITOR can cause liver problems. Your doctor may do blood tests to check your liver before you start taking LIPITOR, and while you take it.
Headache
Constipation
Diarrhea
Gas
Upset stomach and stomach pain
Rash
Muscle and joint pain
Serious Side Effects
LIPITOR can cause serious side effects. These side effects have happened only to a small number of people. Your doctor can monitor you for them. These side effects usually go away if your dose is lowered or LIPITOR is stopped. These serious side effects include:
Muscle problems. LIPITOR can cause serious muscle problems that can lead to kidney problems, including kidney failure. You have a higher chance for muscle problems if you are taking certain other medicines with LIPITOR.
Liver problems. LIPITOR can cause liver problems. Your doctor may do blood tests to check your liver before you start taking LIPITOR, and while you take it.
Most drugs are like that. I think I take five prescriptions; the potential side effect list would be unpostable. Most are rare and really aren't going to affect you though.
Quote:
I think he meant legal drugs.
That's the only sensible explanation I can think of.
He's still wrong if you happen to have insurance. Even if you don't, a lot of pharmacys have their own insurance plans that can give you generics for about the same price as insured brand names. Sometimes it's even cheaper.
Example: 60 Sonata was approximately 2xx before insurance reduced it to 60$. When we changed insurance I joined the wallgreens savings thing and it's the exact same price as before. I've not personally run into a problem with generics. I'm sure, however, that it is possible. A good question is just how much worse off you are with generics, and I can't answer it.
Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 1:20pm by Pensive
Well plus, what dollar amount do you place on (a) quality of life (b) increased lifespan?
Pensive and Elneclare clearly just need to will themselves to health, those drugs aren't worth it.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
He's still wrong if you happen to have insurance.
trickybeck wrote:
Well plus, what dollar amount do you place on (a) quality of life (b) increased lifespan?
Actually, both of you numb-nuts are wrong. When did I mention money?
I wrote:
I think it's unwise and unhealthy to use chemical compounds to alter the body in such ways that it cures athletes foot but gives you bleeding eyeballs.
The cost to benefit ratio I was talking about was the side effects. You take 1 drug and then you have to take 3 more to counter act the side effects of all the previous ones.
When it's not a life or death situation, I really don't think it's worth it.
Kaelesh wrote:
The cost to benefit ratio I was talking about was the side effects. You take 1 drug and then you have to take 3 more to counter act the side effects of all the previous ones.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
Yes, adverse effects from the disease, but what benefical effects from the drug?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm
Quote:
James M. Wright, is no ordinary family physician. A professor at the University of British Columbia, he is also director of the government-funded Therapeutics Initiative, whose purpose is to pore over the data on particular drugs and figure out how well they work. Just as Winn started on his treatment, Wright's team was analyzing evidence from years of trials with statins and not liking what it found.
Yes, Wright saw, the drugs can be life-saving in patients who already have suffered heart attacks, somewhat reducing the chances of a recurrence that could lead to an early death. But Wright had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of patients, like Winn, who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of harm," says Wright. Based on the evidence, and the fact that Winn didn't actually have angina, Wright changed his mind about treating him with statins—and Winn, too, was persuaded. "Because there's no apparent benefit," he says, "I don't take them anymore."
Yes, Wright saw, the drugs can be life-saving in patients who already have suffered heart attacks, somewhat reducing the chances of a recurrence that could lead to an early death. But Wright had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of patients, like Winn, who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of harm," says Wright. Based on the evidence, and the fact that Winn didn't actually have angina, Wright changed his mind about treating him with statins—and Winn, too, was persuaded. "Because there's no apparent benefit," he says, "I don't take them anymore."
Elinda wrote:
No, not really.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
All this aside, did you forget my stance on this? As I've already stated, I will not take a drug unless it's a life or death situation. If it's something like Restless Leg Syndrom (which is total ******** IMO) that stops your legs from jerking but makes you **** out of your ears, I don't want it. If you want to **** out of your ears, by all means, knock yourself out.
Something like high cholesterol, I'd prefer to just eat better and exercise as opposed to some pill that can make your kidneys fail. Cost V. Benefit.
Stephen Colbert wrote:
Side effects include testicular bassoon.
Kaelesh wrote:
Elinda wrote:
No, not really.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
All this aside, did you forget my stance on this? As I've already stated, I will not take a drug unless it's a life or death situation. If it's something like Restless Leg Syndrom (which is total bullsh*t IMO) that stops your legs from jerking but makes you sh*t out of your ears, I don't want it. If you want to sh*t out of your ears, by all means, knock yourself out.
Something like high cholesterol, I'd prefer to just eat better and exercise as opposed to some pill that can make your kidneys fail. Cost V. Benefit.
You throw out the baby with the bathwater, whereas Elinda is more measured in her response..
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Well sure, if you make up imaginary side-effects like ************** out your ears" and "bleeding out your eyeballs," you can make any drug look bad. Especially if you assume that the side-effects will happen without even trying it.
Even if it's just your personal policy, I can still call it ridiculous.
trickybeck wrote:
Well sure, if you make up imaginary side-effects like "sh*tting out your ears" and "bleeding out your eyeballs," you can make any drug look bad.
Even if it's just your personal policy, I can still call it ridiculous.
Use the already quote side effects of Lipitor. I really don't think that using hyperbole makes my point any less valid.
Warchief Annabella wrote:
You throw out the baby with the bathwater, whereas Elinda is more measured in her response..
I'm comfortable with that.
Kaelesh wrote:
Elinda wrote:
No, not really.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
It's all about risk. The risk to the side effects for most of these drugs is negligible, while risk from adverse effects from the disease - diabetes, heart disease, etc, is usually very high.
All this aside, did you forget my stance on this? As I've already stated, I will not take a drug unless it's a life or death situation. If it's something like Restless Leg Syndrom (which is total bullsh*t IMO) that stops your legs from jerking but makes you sh*t out of your ears, I don't want it. If you want to sh*t out of your ears, by all means, knock yourself out.
Something like high cholesterol, I'd prefer to just eat better and exercise as opposed to some pill that can make your kidneys fail. Cost V. Benefit.
As for myself, one time I got poison ivy REALLY bad. My legs were oozing stuff, the stuff would dry to my pants, I'd peel my pants away and then the oozing would start all over again.
I got me some steroids. Dried things right up. So, while I didn't need the drugs to save my life, they were sure nice and allowed me to put my pants back on and go to work.
I hope I don't have to take any drugs to control my cholesterol, but if it keeps going up despite my efforts, I probably will, as the consequences of not taking them are too great for me to be content with. Cost vs Benefit.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Kaelesh wrote:
I really don't think that using hyperbole makes my point any less valid.
Of course it does. When discussing a weighted-value system, you can't hyperbolize the weights. Kaelesh wrote:
Use the already quote side effects of Lipitor.
Check the side effects of aspirin, which you claimed is worth it:
Common:
Heartburn; nausea; upset stomach.
Severe:
Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black or bloody stools; confusion; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; hearing loss; ringing in the ears; severe or persistent stomach pain; unusual bruising; vomiting.
Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 3:08pm by trickybeck
My cholesterol is fine, as is my blood pressure, blood work, and prostate, but my triglycerides tend to shoot through the roof. I've been given conflicting information of what can result from this condition, but my doc impressed on me the importance of losing weight. So I did. I went from 240 bones to a svelte 190, but I haven't gone and had my tri's re-checked to see if that did anything.
Some say it is a non-issue when it is high in and of itself with no other accompanying conditions, especially if it is possibly genetic in nature, but others say it can lead to heart disease. As of today and my last flight physical I am not thowing off any PCBs or abnormal heart rythyms, and my doc isn't terribly concerned with it, so I guess I'm not either.
Personally, I am not against scrips and statins are considered by most leading docs to be very very good for you. And Lipitor is a good statin which does what it is advertised to do. Good stuff.
As for all the Cheerio bull, yeah, it may bring down your numbers a bit, but you trade that off for a walloping dose of carbs first thing in the morning. So which is worse? Carbs or a small increase cholesterol? That would depend on the rest of your diet. On the other hand, Cheerios make you as regular as clockwork for poops, so it has that going for it...
Totem
Some say it is a non-issue when it is high in and of itself with no other accompanying conditions, especially if it is possibly genetic in nature, but others say it can lead to heart disease. As of today and my last flight physical I am not thowing off any PCBs or abnormal heart rythyms, and my doc isn't terribly concerned with it, so I guess I'm not either.
Personally, I am not against scrips and statins are considered by most leading docs to be very very good for you. And Lipitor is a good statin which does what it is advertised to do. Good stuff.
As for all the Cheerio bull, yeah, it may bring down your numbers a bit, but you trade that off for a walloping dose of carbs first thing in the morning. So which is worse? Carbs or a small increase cholesterol? That would depend on the rest of your diet. On the other hand, Cheerios make you as regular as clockwork for poops, so it has that going for it...
Totem
Totem wrote:
On the other hand, Cheerios make you as regular as clockwork for poops, so it has that going for it...
Totem
Totem
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Yep. Good fiber content in them there little round O's. Like swallowing a bowlful of tiny anuses just as a visual reminder for your colon to exercise those sphincter muscles.
Totem
Totem
Quote:
I am not thowing off any PCBs or abnormal heart rythyms
Polychlorinated biphenyl? What the hell are you made of?
Or did you mean PVCs, as in pre-ventricular complexes?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yeah, those too. I've got my own Superfund thing goin' on inside me...
:D
Totem
:D
Totem
Elinda wrote:
It's pretty short-sighted to claim that they should only be used in life or death situations.
I don't give a sh*t about those other people. I'm talking about me. My life or death. As soon as people start understanding that the quicker you can get your horse. I don't care what other people take. That's up to them.
Trickbecky wrote:
Check the side effects of aspirin, which you claimed is worth it:
Worth it to me.
Jesus you people are dense.
Edited, Apr 23rd 2009 3:27pm by Kaelesh
Totem wrote:
As for all the Cheerio bull, yeah, it may bring down your numbers a bit, but you trade that off for a walloping dose of carbs first thing in the morning. So which is worse? Carbs or a small increase cholesterol? That would depend on the rest of your diet. On the other hand, Cheerios make you as regular as clockwork for poops, so it has that going for it...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
For fuck's sake, we know you're only talking about your personal policy. We're pointing out the reasons why you're retarded.
trickybeck wrote:
For fuck's sake, we know you're only talking about your personal policy. We're pointing out the reasons why you're retarded.
Then why you fucking harping? This isn't something you can debate. It's my opinion and this isn't anything that effects anyone else's life. Just call it retarded and move on.
For a while there when I used to eat Cheerios in the morning, after a cup of coffee (another **** maker), and a two mile run (more adrenaline and intestinal wiggling) I could practically set my watch to when I'd ****. Not that anybody here cares, but when you're old like me bowel movements and denture creams take on added significance.
Totem
Totem
Kaelesh wrote:
Then why you fucking harping? This isn't something you can debate. It's my opinion and this isn't anything that effects anyone else's life. Just call it retarded and move on.
Because posting something on an internet forum opens it up to discussion (and ridicule)?
Keep it in your journal if you didn't want it discussed.
Recent Visitors: 285
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (285)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Let's Get Personal
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC