Recently the CBS news ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/26/eveningnews/main20074521.shtml ) highlighted increasing amounts of pharmacy robberies, including armed robberies. It is said that the thieves are primarily after strong and highly addictive pain killers such as Oxycontin. Politicians and police look at it from the “we need to be tougher on crime” perspective, but one has to wonder how so many addicts, enough to make the sales base for these thieves, have been created.
How many of those addicts have been cut off by their doctors but are still in pain due to mainly untreated conditions?
How many became addicted while on the medications legally but were not given the necessary physical and mental support when withdrawing?
In the time of “pop a pill and make it all better” we seem to be sweeping under the rug the issue of what to do when it is time to stop popping the pills. The patients are no longer a source of income to their doctors and pharmacies so they become a source of income for other drug dealers and often end up criminalized and with worse health than they started, and all because they blindly believed a doctor and a drug could cure all.
When we are faced with exorbitant pharmaceutical prices we are told it is so the drug companies can afford research to find treatments and cures for currently untreatable illnesses, or to find more effective treatments with less side effects than those that are already available.
Currently the FDA is working to approve a drug for treating age-related macular degeneration. It’s about par with a drug already on the market that does exactly the same thing.
You might ask “What is the more effective part they have spend millions of our dollars on?” The answer: Instead of having to take the drug once a month as was with the old medication, you only have to take this one every other month.
Now tell me, is that kind of innovation really worth the millions, probably billions, in excess fees that we pay to pharmaceutical companies?
Ten common prescription drugs have been shown to increase violence by 8 to 18 times more than other pharmaceuticals. A study done by multiple agencies has determined the ten worst that include antidepressants, anti anxiety medications and SSRIs in addition to a malaria medication and a stop smoking drug. While the stop smoking aid is almost understandable (who doesn’t go a bit nuts when quitting smoking?) it is sad to see that medications that are meant to calm and balance people are instead putting them at a dramatic risk for normally uncharacteristic violence behavior towards others. My question is how many of these patients are taken off the drugs that caused an increase in erratic and violent behavior versus how many are given a higher dose or an additional mix of medications in an attempt to deal with the original side effects?
With the medical field and pharmacology so dependent on limited studies and interestingly handled statistics to prove or disprove if a treatment or medication is viable, then the illnesses being treated must have been just as scientifically scrutinized, right?
The DSM-IV, otherwise known as The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is filled with illnesses that were created not through scientific study, but by a process of voting. To read more about the soundly unscientific process that takes many human conditions and labels them for the purpose of billing and prescription giving visit http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/inventing-disorders/introduction.html for an informative article written by the president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International.