Rotten to the Mevacor

Merck is once again trying to sell its widely prescribed statin, Mevacor, over the counter, and an FDA advisory panel is listening to arguments today. (I wrote about Merck's second doomed attempt to do the same back in 2005 for my first Reason feature) As one cardiologist told me then, "We're talking about the thing that kills more people than any other disease in America...We're talking about millions of lives saved." Merck has sold a statin OTC in Britain for years now.

The FDA confirms that Mevacor is effective and extremely safe if used properly, but has long doubted the ability of consumers to read directions and follow them. ABC News finds a long list of selfless, kindly cardiologists with absolutely no interest in the status quo to argue that consumers can't possibly deal with their cholesterol problems without... the help of a cardiologist. Also, drug companies are profit-driven. Not like cardiologists.

"I think this is a very clear call," said Dr. Steve Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and immediate past-president of the American College of Cardiology. "I do not think it is a good idea."

"OTC [over-the-counter] statins would be a very bad idea," agreed Dr. John Messmer, associate professor of medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Palmyra.

"While it is true that statins are indeed quite safe despite rumors to the contrary ... when a drug is available OTC the user should be able to judge whether it has had the desired effect. The nonmedical person is not in the position to decide if his or her cholesterol is low enough."

Dr. Douglas Zipes, distinguished professor of cardiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, agreed that the possible side effects of the drug lend weight to the argument that it should not be available without a prescription.

"[The] dangers are that it may prevent people from seeing a cardiologist and not getting a proper evaluation for their heart disease," Zipes said.

And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh well.

Comments

joe | December 12, 2007, 3:47pm | #

And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh well.

Ohnoes, the socialists have gotten to Kerry, too!

There are no patients who lack health insurance, silly. And if there are, they are rich and healthy. And even if, somehow, there were poor people without health insurance who therefore had trouble getting regular medical treatment, they can always get free care in an emergency room.

So there couldn't possibly be an access issue here.

heh

techreseller | December 12, 2007, 3:54pm | #

There certainly is an issue of access here. People with health insurance see their doctor more often. The doctor will at least every other year check your blood, urine etc. That turns up the high cholestrol. People without health insurance do not get tested. So they do not get treated. When the hit emergency room it is because they are having a heart attack or other side effect from high cholestrol.

joe | December 12, 2007, 3:56pm | #

But people without health insurance are all young!

Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 3:58pm | #

has long doubted the ability of VOTERS to read directions and follow them

It's amazing how people who are smart enough to elect their own leaders are not trusted by those same leaders to be smart enough to do anything else.

J sub D | December 12, 2007, 4:00pm | #

So there couldn't possibly be an access issue here.

Nope, couldn't be self serving opinions by the medical profession either. Doctors only want to serve humanity.

Does anybody here think that having statin available OTC would prevent them from seeking proffessional advice if you deemed it necessary?
Is anyone here too stupid to read and understand the warning labels on OTC drugs?

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:03pm | #

they can always get free care in an emergency room.

Or, just get it at your regular doctor's office.

Oh, that whistling sound you hear? That's joe walking past the graveyard.

brotherben | December 12, 2007, 4:03pm | #

Big bucks for a coffee burned crotch.
Smokers suing big tobacco because smoking was unhealthy.
Mom drinks a quart of whiskey a day while preggers then has a retarded kid and sues the distiller.

Many people are too f**kin dee dee deee to pour piss from a boot.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:05pm | #

You know, I'm about to have my libertarian decoder ring and whistle pulled for this one, but I'm wondering if we may need another *ducks* government oversight organization on this one. Maybe split the FDA into two seperate offices.

One which decides if a drug is "safe and effective", another which decides the details such as whether it can be OTC or not. Just wondering.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:07pm | #

But people without health insurance are all young!

Methinks you're talking about the unborn? The embryo? The glint in the milkman's eye?

Maybe not.

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/insurance/children.htm

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:13pm | #

And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh well.

Kerry, in all honesty, joe's gonna have a field day with you on this one.

If the drug were to remain prescription, it could be argued poor people would have more access to it, not less. The reason is that poor people are getting real in-clinic healthcare (not emergency room care only) and probably wouldn't be aware of such a drug on the shelf. When they have an appointment, the doctor will suggest this drug, and the prescription will probably be largely paid for from public monies.

I'm not really sure if this is a class issue, or a general infantilization issue. I think it's the latter, not the former.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Paul,

Thanks for backing me up, and drawing attention to the need for public-sector programs to address this country's health-care access program.

More like that, please.

ed | December 12, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Self medication is never a good idea for the layman. Statins aren't aspirin. Not that I believe people should be protected from their own stupidity, but let's be honest. Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time, then go on their merry way without any further followups. I won't jump on the "all doctors are evil" bandwagon. They come in pretty handy when you're having a heart attack.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Oops, not "program," "problem."

"...this country's health-care access problem," I meant.

The one that led Washington State to create that program that you, somehow, seem to believe is an argument against the existence of people who would have trouble getting medical care on their on.

that annoying anti-pharmaceutical hippy | December 12, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Reason magazine is a propaganda mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry. Among their various unsavory corporate sponsors are Bayer, Pfizer, and Eli Lily. Pharmaceutical companies do not give a flying fuck about the health of consumers. It is in their interest for us to stay sick and become more sick. Eli Lily's top selling drug, Zyprexa, causes diabetes. This is given to basically every person who is committed in the United States. Lily's second most lucrative drug is a diabetes drug. I have been committed before and the withdrawal from psychiatric pharmaceuticals can just as bad as heroin or cocaine.

This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people. Instead of helping them get decent food we should give them this poisonous shit, according to libertarians. Honestly, if you can afford to eat organic vegetables but are too stupid or brainwashed to spend the extra money, go ahead and take the cholesterol pill and see what happens.

Also, if anyone has any illusions left about the FDA, remember that they are now allowing super potent antibiotics to be used on beef cattle that will breed super resistant bacteria that will attack people. They started doing this earlier this year, despite the contrary advice of the scientists advising them.

Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Go to Mexico. Everything is OTC in Mexico.

There! Problem solved!

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:21pm | #

Joe, in many of my debates with you, you seem to be convinced, and have said as much, that you don't believe I "support" these public programs.

This couldn't be further from the truth. I do support some of these programs (yes, some I don't), especially the ones that provide real, basic healthcare. Our system works well. Going to a single payer system, however, would be disasterous. Our contry provides enough excess wealth to take care of our poorest people on the healthcare front. In fact, our healthcare system has enough excess wealth to pay for the healthcare the Canadians have access to, but aren't able to get in their own country.

We provide food stamps for the poor, and I'm for that program, too. But that doesn't mean that I think the government should go to a single food-provider system and provide Bill Gates' food as well.

But unfortunately, this really isn't so much of a healthcare thread, as a thread to discuss the viability of a given drug to be sold OTC. So I'm going to abandon the threadjack.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Paul,

I will join you in abandoning the threadjack, and apologize if I missed you meaning.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:24pm | #

...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | December 12, 2007, 4:36pm | #

True, joe, but do we want to go down the "keep ratcheting up public assistance until the poor are *happy*" road? That would be a well no amount of money would fill.
Johnny "Threadjacking with pride since 2001" Clarke

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:37pm | #

joe,

but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will actually buy?

Crack at about 50 cents on the dollar?

Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 4:38pm | #

Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time, then go on their merry way without any further followups.

And their cholesterol will be lower.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 4:39pm | #

This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people.

taaph:

I thought libertarians were doing everything they could to avoid giving drugs to the poor people?!!

Ohh, I fed the troll. Sorry guys.

joe:

...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.

Not only have I seen what foodstamps buy, I've also seen the cost of cigarettes in this state, and somehow, many poor people manage to afford them.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to priorities.

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:39pm | #

joe,

There is no health care access problem. Everyone has access to the health care they can afford. Its not like 1950 where a negro might not be allowed to see the white doctor.

OhMeOhMy | December 12, 2007, 4:41pm | #

...but have you ever seen what a ration of foodstamps will actually buy? Aid to the poor tends to be poor aid.

Are you fucking kidding me? I lost my job last year, and we had to resort to using food stamps for about 3 months to keep our family fed. We got more money in food stamps per month than we would have spent were we not on the program.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 4:41pm | #

How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high cholesterol without seeing a doctor? It doesn't make any sense at all to sell this drug over the counter.

And patients who lack health insurance and can't afford the doctors' visits or the price of a prescription drug? Oh well.

How incredibly dishonest and hypocritical. I'm sure you really care about those poor people who can't afford to see a doctor. That's why you're trying to privatize their healthcare, right? So they can afford prescription drugs. Right. How do you people say that shit with a straight face? As if they would lower the prices if we would just let them.

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:43pm | #

How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high cholesterol without seeing a doctor?

The new market in finger prick cholesterol testing kits? I have no idea if this is possible, but seems like it could be to me.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Defining the problem away is what you do when you can't, or would rather not, solve it.

Weird time travel conversation | December 12, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Traveler: You should test to see if you are pregnant
Old timey gal: But I cant afford a doctor
Traveler: Then just pee on a stick
Old timey gal: ????

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Noticing the lack of Italian sports cars in my garage, and not enough cash in my wallet, I declare that I have a ferrari-access problem.

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Defining the problem away is what you do when you can't, or would rather not, solve it.

Or, its possible that there isnt a problem.

joe | December 12, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Tell it to Kerry, fellas.

She seems to think that keeping this drug prescription-only would reduce access for people who lack health insurance.

She seems to think that there are people who, because they lack wealth or health insurance, aren't able to visit the doctor as often as they need.

Go ahead, explain why she's wrong.

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:53pm | #

joe,

On the first part, technically she is right, but that is a different "access" problem than the one you are talking about. The existence of the FDA leads to a drug-access problem, because some drugs arent yet approved or are prescription only. ANY prescription-only drug leads to an access problem.

On the second part, once again she is right. They dont visit the doctor as often as they need. But they have the RIGHT to visit, they just choose to put other expenses over health care (and if it is food/shelter, they are probably choosing correctly). That is an income problem, not a health-care access problem.

TrickyVic | December 12, 2007, 4:54pm | #

"""they can always get free care in an emergency room.""""

Yeah we need more non-emergencies clogging up the emergency room.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 4:55pm | #

She seems to think that keeping this drug prescription-only would reduce access for people who lack health insurance.

GOOD! They should be getting subsidized organic produce. Ron Bailey is a sleazeball liar. Poor people have cholesterol problems from the shitting food they are forced to eat. It's really obvious at this point.

Joe, if you think universal healthcare is a good idea you need to wake up to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has some serious bad news in store for us. If the American people don't do something about it we are going to get universally poisoned pills shoved down our throat by government thugs.

Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 4:56pm | #

The new market in finger prick cholesterol testing kits?

New? The stuff's been out more than EIGHT years!! (My sister used to run one of the labs. http://www.hmscweb.com/healthprovide.htm)

robc | December 12, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Russ 2000,

Good, then that solves that whole problem of self diagnosis then. You should let Dr. John Messmer, associate professor of medicine at the Penn State College of Medicine in Palmyra know about it too.

Tina | December 12, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Singer Ike Turner dead at age 76

robc | December 12, 2007, 5:01pm | #

From the link Russ posted:

Now testing your cholesterol level is so easy and accurate with Home Access Health's Instant Cholesterol kit. The test is simple and easy to use, requiring only a few drops of blood obtained from a finger stick sample, and results are available in ONLY 15 minutes. The kit comes with an instructional insert that allows the user to interpret the results using the updated National Cholesterol Education (NCEP) guidelines. Home Access Health provides a 100% satisfaction guarantee to consumers and backs the service with an extended hour toll free customer support line. High cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for developing heart disease and stroke. It is important for all adults over 20 years of age to test every 5 years for cholesterol and more often for those with total cholesterol levels of over 200 mg/dl. Pharmacy patients who are on cholesterol reducing drugs such as Statins and Niacin are prime candidates for Home Access Health's Instant Cholesterol test. Click on the product for more information and to purchase on-line today!

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Eli Lily's top selling drug, Zyprexa, causes diabetes. This is given to basically every person who is committed in the United States. Lily's second most lucrative drug is a diabetes drug.

If you'd prefer haldoperidol or chlorpromazine, then... Zyprexa "causes diabetes" by stimulating the apetitie. A certain percentage of people who overeat will become grossly overweight, and subset those individuals will develop diabetes. Proposing an organized plot here is a little paranoid. All drug companies make diabetes medications, because diabetes is so common. Zyprexa would probably be an even better seller if it wasn't associated with weight gain.

This is a disgusting attempt to drug poor people. Instead of helping them get decent food we should give them this poisonous shit, according to libertarians.

Diet is only a portion of cholesterol, and probably the smaller part for most people. I have family members who can eat a plate of eggs and bacon before getting their blood drawn, and their LDL never pops above 80. I have other family members who eat like cows and can't drop below 250. Statins are a godsend to the latter.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 5:07pm | #

GOOD! They should be getting subsidized organic produce. Ron Bailey is a sleazeball liar. Poor people have cholesterol problems from the shitting food they are forced to eat. It's really obvious at this point.

There is very little reason to suspect that organic tomatoes, for example, have cholesterol-lowering powers that their conventional counterparts lack, nor is diet the primary contributor to cholesterol for most people.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:07pm | #

New? The stuff's been out more than EIGHT years!!

Okay, I guess we can let everyone who wants to take the cholesterol drug, and then another new drug to fix the problems that the cholesterol drug causes.

I don't doubt that the people writing for Reason magazine really think they are helping poor people by fighting for the rights of pharma companies to do whatever the fuck they want. I used to be brainwashed, too. Then I realized that they are trying to make us sick. And if you think they actually want to make people better you are a fool.

Fuck, we could have cured all kinds of diseases by now if we had allowed stem cell research to go through. But hey, where would that leave the pill companies?

R C Dean | December 12, 2007, 5:07pm | #

The FDA confirms that Mevacor is effective and extremely safe if used properly, but has long doubted the ability of consumers to read directions and follow them.

You mean, like the directions printed on the side of the prescription drug bottle you get from the pharmacy?

Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 5:11pm | #

robc,

He probably already knows. An uneducated consumer is a doctor's best customer.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 5:14pm | #

Poor people have cholesterol problems from the shitting food they are forced to eat.

My mainstream grocery store has tons of quality, low-cholesteral foods which are dirt cheap. I'm sorry, could you please provide pictoral examples of all the poor people being forced at gunpoint to eat the high-cholesterol, and relatively more expensive foods?

Sheesh, people on this thread are brutal with joe, yet he's a dream to have a debate with compared to this reactionary (and unsubstantiated) crap.

robc:

I think you miss the larger point. If your doctor identifies that you have a cholesterol problem-- a "chronic" condition, it probably behooves you to buy one of these testing kits so that you may monitor your cholesterol on an ongoing basis, without having to needlessly run to the doctor three times a week. The main issue being that one need not be constantly running to the doctor for basic health maintenance.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:14pm | #

Proposing an organized plot here is a little paranoid.

Bullshit. I'm not even getting started. Psychiatric drugs don't do anything to fix "mental illness". They only cripple the brain. The organized plot is called "Attention Deficit Disorder" and the newest drug for that (besides SPEED) is called Strattera. Strattera actually causes people to become bipolar, which I have experienced personally. It even says it on the label now because the FDA made them put it there.

So just about everyone can be diagnosed with ADD, then the prescription gives them mania, then the get bipolar meds, which in turn give them diabetes. This shit happens A LOT. There are lawyers that specialize in Seroquel lawsuits. They don't give a fuck about us. They want us to get sicker.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 5:14pm | #

I used to be brainwashed, too. Then I realized that they are trying to make us sick.

?!!

*slowly backs away*

Paul | December 12, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Fuck, we could have cured all kinds of diseases by now if we had allowed stem cell research to go through.

Stem cell research never stopped. Ever. Europe, which has a utopian healthcare and public research complex continues apace with stem-cell research. Federal funds were barred for embryonic stem cell research, shifting the financing to private and state entities.

Or, is the joke on me, and I'm responding to a comment bot coming from Z-Mag?

robc | December 12, 2007, 5:19pm | #

Paul,

Im 38 and havent been to the doctor in about 15 years. It probably behooves me to get to the doctor. But buying one of those kits and checking my cholesterol wouldnt hurt either and would be a lot cheaper (well, probably not much cheaper than my copay), especially if I didnt have insurance.

Now, that said, if I found I had a problem, I would go to the doctor before I started taking statins, even if they were OTC, but I dont even like to take aspirin/tylenol/cold medicine/etc.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:19pm | #

?!!

I used to be a libertarian, then I realised that all the utopian talk about "real capitalism" is a bunch of horse shit. Pharmaceutical companies are the best example.

Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 5:23pm | #

it probably behooves you to buy one of these testing kits so that you may monitor your cholesterol on an ongoing basis, without having to needlessly run to the doctor three times a week.

People on the meds NOW only get tested every 3 months as their "ongoing basis". But you've probably hit upon a great markteing idea - get people to test way more often than necessary. There's no such thing as "too safe" ya know.

(Here's the kits my sister used to work on:
http://www.ebiosafe.com/frame.asp?Current_Category=1&Current_Product=4)

Paul | December 12, 2007, 5:23pm | #

Go ahead, explain why she's wrong.

Joe, I did.

R C Dean | December 12, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Europe, which has a utopian healthcare and public research complex

Oddly, though, many of the best scientists are coming to the US and have been for years. I used to work with a medical research foundation that was stocked almost entirely with top-flight French scientists, and we had a waiting list a mile long.

Brian Courts | December 12, 2007, 5:26pm | #

you know who:

Psychiatric drugs don't do anything to fix "mental illness".

Apparently going off psychiatric meds doesn't help either...

I'm smarter than you | December 12, 2007, 5:29pm | #

Statins should be OTC. If being OTC saves just one life it'll all be worth it.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:32pm | #

Apparently going off psychiatric meds doesn't help either

Withdrawal very often causes the symptoms of a drug's matching "disorder". Not that you know anything about me, anyway. You try taking that shit and then explain to me why it makes you want to kill yourself.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:32pm | #

Psychiatric drugs don't do anything to fix "mental illness".

As a person who suffers from rapid-cycling bipolar disorder and whose life was saved by Eli-Lilly, I order you to fuck off, you bleeding cunt.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Seriously, "you know who," come here and say it to my face. I'll fucking pound your eyes shut.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:39pm | #

I'll fucking pound your eyes shut.

Gotta love those psychiatric drugs.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:43pm | #

Jamie Kelly, I also suffer from bipolar disorder. I got it from taking that new ADD medication called Strattera. Since I feel for you I'd like to tell you that a lot of people I know have had very positive results with acupuncture, both for detoxification and emotional symptoms.

So tell me, do you still suffer from bipolar "disorder"? Have they "cured" you? Have they "not found the right medication" yet?

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:46pm | #

you know who,
Why don't you go join the fucking LaRouche party, grease up Oliver Stone's flaccid dick and stick it straight in your ass, you conspiracy-addled little mental midget.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:48pm | #

There is no "cure" for bipolar disorder, limpdick. You can only treat the symptoms. But surely you knew that because you're SO well-read on the subject.
Goddamn, who let out the fuckers on the short bus today?

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Oliver Stone? Has he done any work about pharmaceuticals? I'm interested. I haven't even seen JFK. Your changing the subject makes me think you are not really suffering from bipolar disorder.

It would also explain the violent language.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:52pm | #

Your changing the subject makes me think you are not really suffering from bipolar disorder.

You know, I feel like going off my meds for a while and getting all manic on your ass. And I'll bring a baseball bat, too.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:52pm | #

Seriously, being seen as violent is probably the last thing someone who is labeled as "mentally ill" wants. That's the sort of thing that gets you committed.

Neil P | December 12, 2007, 5:54pm | #

Merck can do whatever they want without regulation (as long as they pay their taxes). After all, corporations and gov't are merely quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes literature, Amazon and Wikipedia ban the book "America Deceived". We The People had our gov't sold out from beneath us.
Final link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 5:54pm | #

The reason I'm so pissed off is because I've been listening to bullshit artists like you ever since I was diagnosed. And I've done enough research into your claims to know that YOU fuckers are brainwashed, and attempting to do real harm to people in the name of corporation-bashing.
SO FUCK YOU.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:55pm | #

Come to think of it, have you heard about the new Preventing Violent Domestic Radicalization act? Your comments would probably qualify you as an "enemy combatant".

J sub D | December 12, 2007, 5:57pm | #

Many people would see their doctor once, get their blood tested, pick up a bottle of pills, maybe get tested one more time, then go on their merry way without any further followups.
And how does this affect me?

Seriously, preventive care is, by and large, a result of personal decisions that we make every day. Many diagnostic tests, (blood pressure, cholesterol, pregnancy, vitamin deficiencies) can be performed without ever seeing the degreed lady in the white smock. Self treatment, by informed people, would ease the burden on our bastardized health care system. To argue that drug availability has to go through a gatekeeper insults the intelligence of me and every other health care consumer. That some people will make bad decisions is not a valid reason to deny everyone access to health care products. Should we require a visit to a professional dietician in order to select the foods we eat? The health implications of those decisions are enormous.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Who exactly is brainwashing me, then? Also, I am interested in this "research". Show me, if it's there.

J sub D | December 12, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Sheesh, people on this thread are brutal with joe, yet he's a dream to have a debate with compared to this reactionary (and unsubstantiated) crap.

joe is a left wing statist. He's intelligent, often funny, and occasionaly insightful. I'm getting much better at just ignoring to loons.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Since I feel for you I'd like to tell you that a lot of people I know have had very positive results with acupuncture, both for detoxification and emotional symptoms.

you-know-who. You do realize that you could have had equally satisfying results with fake acupuncture, right?

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:03pm | #

J sub D,

I agree with self-treatment in general, but I think there is a legitimate concern that a lot of people would take this drug unnecessarily and this could cause health problems. I wanted to point out that the reason this is being discussed on this website is to stand up for the rights of Merck to sell us their drugs, and that the health of poor people is secondary to libertarians. If they cared about the health of poor people they would be arguing against subsidized organic farming.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 6:05pm | #

Who exactly is brainwashing me, then?

Your world view.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:05pm | #

You do realize that you could have had equally satisfying results with fake acupuncture, right?

Have you ever had acupuncture? It definitely beats a placebo. Psychiatric drugs, on the other hand, are often found to be less effective than a placebo.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:07pm | #

sorry, that's "would not be arguing against organic farming"

J sub D | December 12, 2007, 6:10pm | #

I agree with self-treatment in general, but I think there is a legitimate concern that a lot of people would take this drug unnecessarily and this could cause health problems.

First I would like to apoligize yo all for feeding the troll.

A whole lot of people put stuff in their systems every fuckin' day that is bad for them. Including me (6-8 cancer sticks). Name a product, somebody will abuse it to their own detriment. I don't think that adults should have their decisions regulated based on the lowest common denominator, i.e. morons like yourself.

Jamie Kelly | December 12, 2007, 6:11pm | #

Organic farming is horseshit, too. It's more dangerous in terms of your health, it's no more nutritious than store-bought food, and it's far more expensive.
SO FUCK OFF.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 6:12pm | #

Have you ever had acupuncture? It definitely beats a placebo.

So does fake acupuncture. I'm sorry, maybe you don't follow the news. Here's a link.

Or, are we going to be treated with another rousing personal testimonial? I've avoided posting mine, but you're pushing me.

Psychiatric drugs, on the other hand, are often found to be less effective than a placebo.

That's a pretty bold and broad statement. Could you provide the clinical studies which show "Pschiatric drugs" are less effective than placebo?

Paul | December 12, 2007, 6:13pm | #

Post correction: Although my post "worked", this: "Or, are we going to be treated with another rousing personal testimonial? I've avoided posting mine, but you're pushing me.
" was supposed to be at the end of my post, not the middle.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Almost half the patients treated with acupuncture needles felt relief that lasted months. In contrast, only about a quarter of the patients receiving medications and other Western medical treatments felt better.

Even fake acupuncture worked better than conventional care, leading researchers to wonder whether pain relief came from the body's reactions to any thin needle pricks or, possibly, the placebo effect.

Okay, even fake acupuncture would be better than psych medication. At least it doesn't make you sick.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:20pm | #

Organic farming is horseshit, too.

Wow, you must really love Reason magazine. Do you think that Roundup is good for you?

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:26pm | #

Could you provide the clinical studies which show "Pschiatric drugs" are less effective than placebo?

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020906.html

BakedPenguin | December 12, 2007, 6:43pm | #

While I dislike "you know who"'s conspiracy talk, psychiatric meds have a dubious track record. They can help people, but many of them are very dangerous, and often unhelpful. Some drugs that help some people will be useless, or counter-productive to others. (This is not to say they should be removed, etc.)

Unfortunately, many of the people who complain about the drugs are former patients - who suffer from credibility problems as a result of their conditions. That the Scientologists also attack them makes it that much easier to dismiss criticism of psych meds as coming from a bunch of nutjobs.

Very often, the studies done on psych meds are by psychiatrists on drug company payrolls, which at the very least suggests a conflict of interest. At worse, it could mean the FDA is little more than a barrier to entry for newer companies, while those doing the studies are just working on an exercise in logrolling.

For a good critical study of psych meds, read Peter Breggin's Toxic Psychiatry.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 6:52pm | #

you know who:

Thank you for the link.

My first comment is what you've done is provided a link to possible issues with one subclass of "psychiatric drugs", particularly anti-depressants. This does not even begin to cover the large array of drugs provided to people with all manner of psychoses such as schizo-effective disorder, etc. So your broad statement of "psychiatric drugs" is still wanting.

However, even the article you provide doesn't paint this issue as a slam-dunk. For instance, there are statistically significant differences between the anti-depressant and placebo. Just not "clinically significant".

However, you've cherry picked one of the major areas which is a notoriously "fuzzy" segment of psychiatric "illness". Depression in many ways is much like back and neck pain-- two things which also respond very well to placebo and acupuncture (real or fake).

I would point out that the drugs covered are for depression specifically, not bi-polar. The manic side of bipolar disorder is often treated with Lithium. Lithium is very affective vs. placebo, for instance.

Also, you "know" your bipolar was caused by a drug. From the very site you use as an authoritative source:

The cause of bipolar disorder is not entirely known. Genetic, neurochemical and environmental factors probably interact at many levels to play a role in the onset and progression of bipolar disorder. The current thinking is that this is a predominantly biological disorder that occurs in a specific part of the brain and is due to a malfunction of the neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain). As a biological disorder, it may lie dormant and be activated spontaneously or it may be triggered by stressors in life.

Problem here, you-know-who, is that I have personal experience with bi-polar disorder, and believe me, it was there before medication was taken, not after.

BakedPenguin:

No one here who knows one whit about psychiatric medications believe they're a walk in the park. Many have severe side effects, but to label them all as no more effective than placebo, then go and talk about what effects they have is... sorry for this... nutty. Antipsychotics are often times as bad as the disease, but when you've got a man walking naked down the street, muttering to himself, giving him a medication that gives him body ticks and makes him unable to regulate his body temperature is, alas, the lesser of two evils.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:54pm | #

That the Scientologists also attack them makes it that much easier to dismiss criticism of psych meds as coming from a bunch of nutjobs.

Fucking A. That's what I usually get here.

Go ahead and dislike the "conspiracy talk". The drugs make you sick. I am not making this shit up. These people give amphetamines to 5 year olds. There is no excuse. How can you possibly trust them? Do you think it's a good idea to give a kid speed? They are nothing but drug pushers, and much worse than the illegal drug pushers because they have more money and more power. They own the fucking government.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 6:55pm | #

fyi, bakedpenguin, I wasn't suggesting you said the drugs are no more effective than placebo, I was referring back to you-know-who's comments.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 6:55pm | #

Okay, even fake acupuncture would be better than psych medication. At least it doesn't make you sick.

One of the best principles of medicine is to do as little as possible. Patients, however, have a tendency to demand treatment whether it is really indicated or not, leading to overprescription of many drugs from antibiotics to antidepressants. A number of people recieving these drugs would probably get better on their own. Unfortunately, it is not considered ethical to prescribe a placebo. Sham treatments, like acupuncture and most herbs, then, do have a place in medicine. They function as placebos, allowing people to satisfy their urge to "get something done" while they get better on their own, and avoid the side effects of prescription medications.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 6:59pm | #

Paul,

I am trying to say that the person walking down the street naked doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their entire life.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:04pm | #

I am trying to say that the person walking down the street naked doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their entire life.

As someone with professional experience in the field, I would like to say that there is much more to psychosis than simply walking around naked, and that antipsychotics have made live livable for a number of people (and their families) who would otherwise exist is a paranoid hell. One can always wish they had fewer side effects, but they are far better than nothing.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:04pm | #

And Tacos, acupuncture is not a sham treatment. Try getting full body acupuncture. It alters your consciousness in a way that a placebo can't. Full body acupuncture is at least as potent as cannabis.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:05pm | #

I am trying to say that the person walking down the street naked doesn't deserve to be put into a vegetative state for their entire life.

I think you and I are probably in agreement here.

*chairs creaking as the entire psychiatric establishment leans forward to hear the solution*

SIV | December 12, 2007, 7:07pm | #

I would suggest Jamie Kelly and you know who read a few books by the great libertarian thinker Thomas Szasz. I had to double-check to make sure he wasn't mentioned in the original post.

Every drug belongs OTC in any free society.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:07pm | #

One can always wish they had fewer side effects

One could also demand accountability when Eli Lily knew that the drugs were making people physically ill and yet pushed for off-label use for practically every listed "disorder".

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:10pm | #

And Tacos, acupuncture is not a sham treatment. Try getting full body acupuncture. It alters your consciousness in a way that a placebo can't. Full body acupuncture is at least as potent as cannabis.

I suppose it depends on the conditions. For sinusitis or schizsophrenia, it would certainly be a sham treatment. For disorders associated with anxiety, probably not. I have undergone accupuncture, however, and I will say that they must have has some pretty wimpy cannabis when you were growing up.

know i dont | December 12, 2007, 7:10pm | #

High colonics, they cure everything.
Legitimate health care providers of irrigation services can be identified by their tight latex uniforms and high heeled boots.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:10pm | #

*chairs creaking as the entire psychiatric establishment leans forward to hear the solution*

MAPS should be allowed to experiment with willing volunteers to treat mental illness. That way we could at the very least clear up this "cannabis causes psychosis" garbage.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:12pm | #

Tacos

They function as placebos, allowing people to satisfy their urge to "get something done" while they get better on their own, and avoid the side effects of prescription medications.

This is why some insurance companies now cover acupuncture. Acupuncturists see this as a vindication of their craft. In reality, it's a matter of dollars and sense.

Insruance companies can send someone with the incredibly vague and hard to treat malady such as back or neck pain, or smoking cessation, to a real doctor who will treat with traditional but expensive procedures. Or, we can send someone to an acupuncturist who plays Windham Hill cd's and sticks needles in the body. Either way, we're getting roughly the same results and personal testimonials. One costs a lot of money, the other costs much less. Sugar pills are cheap. If people report results with sugar pills, let's buy them instead.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:12pm | #

One could also demand accountability when Eli Lily knew that the drugs were making people physically ill and yet pushed for off-label use for practically every listed "disorder".

Most, if not all, drugs have the potential to make people physically ill. There is always a balance between therapy and side effects. It's only when a drug has no effects whatsoever that it also has no side effects.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:15pm | #

There is always a balance between therapy and side effects.

Bullshit. Zyprexa is made to shove down people's throats against their will. I can tell you work in the industry because a human being wouldn't apologize for these evil motherfuckers.

BakedPenguin | December 12, 2007, 7:16pm | #

Paul - yes, "you know who" was engaging in some hyperbole. I wrote my post because psych meds can be very dangerous, and I wasn't seeing any acknowledgment of that fact.

you know who - nearly all drugs have side effects. I don't think you're wrong in criticizing the drug companies for pushing the over medication of America, I think you're wrong in seeing inter-connected conspiracies everywhere. Their second best selling drugs fights diabetes? Maybe that's because diabetes is one of the largest health problems in the US.

Neuroleptics may be necessary in some cases. But they are often over prescribed and over dosed. One of the saddest uses is on Alzheimer's patients. People who are already having problems thinking having what remains of their brain destroyed by drugs. If treatments are developed for Alzheimers in the next few years, some of the people who could have benefitted won't be able to because their brains will have been damaged beyond repair.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:16pm | #

It's only when a drug has no effects whatsoever that it also has no side effects.

Which is why acupuncture is so great-- no nasty side effects.

True story: My wife was thinking of getting acupuncture. My response: it certainly can't hurt!

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:17pm | #

These people give amphetamines to 5 year olds. There is no excuse. How can you possibly trust them? Do you think it's a good idea to give a kid speed?

Amphetamines are not as toxic as they are made out to be by drug warriors. It is often underappreciated as well how much pressure to prescribe these drugs comes not from drug companies, but from patients and parents. The doctor is getting it from both ends - the drug company, with its glossy pamplets, and from frazzled mom, who demands something to slow little Jimmy down. You can't blame it all on the companies. The companies offer, the patients demand, and the doctor is frequently stuck in between.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:18pm | #

If treatments are developed for Alzheimers in the next few years

There won't be, because there is already an effective treatment. It's called cannabis. They don't want to help those people.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:21pm | #

There won't be, because there is already an effective treatment. It's called cannabis.

You might want to get the word out to these folks.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:21pm | #

Bullshit. Zyprexa is made to shove down people's throats against their will. I can tell you work in the industry because a human being wouldn't apologize for these evil motherfuckers.

You do realize that psychotic patients do not enjoy their psychosis, don't you? It's pretty unpleasant when the devil tells you that you have to copy the entire bible onto your bedroom walls or your heart will stop. I know many more people that appreciate these drugs that resent them. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but don't generalize it.

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:22pm | #

You can't blame it all on the companies

Don't forget about psychiatrists. People who invent the rationale for pushing the drugs deserve blame too, but in the end psychiatry is just an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:24pm | #

There won't be, because there is already an effective treatment. It's called cannabis. They don't want to help those people.

People who smoke cannabis, as well as those who drink moderately, do seem to have a lower incidence of neurodegenerative disorders. However, I know of know research into cannabis as a theraputic agent in individuals who have already developed dementia. My intuitive sense, however, is that it would be less that effective.

J sub D | December 12, 2007, 7:25pm | #

Paul, that was good.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:25pm | #

People who invent the rationale for pushing the drugs deserve blame too, but in the end psychiatry is just an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.

Someone who worked exclusively with the mentally ill in a clinical setting told me something once: Never try to logically convince the mentally ill person that their paranoia is irrational.

Am I going to hell for repeating that here?

you know who | December 12, 2007, 7:26pm | #

I know many more people that appreciate these drugs that resent them.

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

- Aldous Huxley

Thank you for doing your part to support the global open-air concentration camp

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:26pm | #

Paul, that was good.

Thank you. I'm here all week.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:29pm | #

too, but in the end psychiatry is just an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.

But seriously... this would be a bit like saying telephones are an extension of the plastic industry.

Tacos mmm... | December 12, 2007, 7:30pm | #

Thank you for doing your part to support the global open-air concentration camp

Certainly, it would be innappropriate for everyone to be taking anti-psychotics. Fortunately no one is suggesting such a thing.

Paul | December 12, 2007, 7:40pm | #

The companies offer, the patients demand, and the doctor is frequently stuck in between.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

Dantteetarian | December 12, 2007, 7:48pm | #

Go ahead, explain why she's wrong.

Somebody's expecting?

brotherben | December 12, 2007, 8:34pm | #

"Someone who worked exclusively with the mentally ill in a clinical setting told me something once: Never try to logically convince the mentally ill person that their paranoia is irrational.

Am I going to hell for repeating that here?"


Paul,
My head was about to explode. Thank you for the depressurization due to levity.

Joe S. | December 12, 2007, 11:50pm | #

Millions of people, life or death? Then this is the American Genocide, isn't it?

I sense a powerful campaign issue for Ron Paul.

For a lot of elderly GOPers thought to be securely in the Neocon camp, even al-Qaeda is nowhere near as scary as what's going on inside their chests.

Mike Laursen | December 13, 2007, 1:45am | #

How the fuck is somebody going to decide they have high cholesterol without seeing a doctor?

One answer: Why the fuck can't we have more grades of health care professionals who are qualified to diagnose certain common problems and prescribe medications (or better yet recommend OTC medicines because we've completely done away with prescriptions) without having to earn a full Medical Doctor degree? Pharmacists, for example, could revise their traditional role of being more than glorified bottle fillers.

R C Dean | December 13, 2007, 8:01am | #

The companies offer, the patients demand, and the doctor is frequently stuck in between.

The poor widdle doctors can take care of themselves.

They prescribe so many drugs because (a) a lot of drugs these days are pretty handy at actually curing people, or at least alleviating symptoms and (b) its a good way to get you out of their office quickly, which is important because doctors need to turn exam rooms in order to make money.

AC | December 13, 2007, 8:31am | #

you know who

Beastmaster?
Ringo?
Axl?
Sinéad?
Chief?

McCloud!

Mike Laursen | December 13, 2007, 11:04am | #

I used to be a libertarian, then I realised that all the utopian talk about "real capitalism" is a bunch of horse shit.

Yes, but your next realization will be that all utopian talk about government protecting us is a bunch of horse shit, too. Then you'll realize that all utopian talk is horse shit. Period. At that point, you can begin to think rationally about the nature of government and societal power structures in general.

st4rbux | December 13, 2007, 5:34pm | #

@Mike Laursen:
see Nurse Practitioner ?

Mike Laursen | December 13, 2007, 8:10pm | #

I'm aware of nurse practitioners, which is why I said, "more grades of health care professionals". It is my understanding that, depending on which state they are practicing in, nurse practitioners are not always allowed to prescribe all of the medicines a doctor can, nor always allowed to practice independently of a doctor. Also, for many common ailments, a nurse practitioner has more training than is actually needed, helping to drive up the cost of healthcare.