The news industry was complicit in the opioid crisis(cjr.org)
cjr.org
The news industry was complicit in the opioid crisis
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/opioids-news-prescription-doctor.php
158 comments
Thank you for sharing this.
Someone I love has chronic pain managed with (legally prescribed) opioids, and they have constant low-level anxiety that a bureaucratic mixup will result in their medication being denied (or heaven forbid they lose a prescription, or that they'll need a refill when their doctor is on vacation and the locum will be 'suspicious of drug seeking behavior'.
They had to sign a document that if they lost a prescription, they understood that they would be denied a refill, even though (a) there isn't actually any reason to physically hand them the piece of paper, it could all be done between the doctor and pharmacy, and (b) people with chronic pain typically also exhibit various degrees of 'being distracted' due to that same pain.
I could go on, and TBH, my friend hasn't had any gaps in getting their medication, but the current wave of anti-opioid hysteria is concerning.
Someone I love has chronic pain managed with (legally prescribed) opioids, and they have constant low-level anxiety that a bureaucratic mixup will result in their medication being denied (or heaven forbid they lose a prescription, or that they'll need a refill when their doctor is on vacation and the locum will be 'suspicious of drug seeking behavior'.
They had to sign a document that if they lost a prescription, they understood that they would be denied a refill, even though (a) there isn't actually any reason to physically hand them the piece of paper, it could all be done between the doctor and pharmacy, and (b) people with chronic pain typically also exhibit various degrees of 'being distracted' due to that same pain.
I could go on, and TBH, my friend hasn't had any gaps in getting their medication, but the current wave of anti-opioid hysteria is concerning.
"current wave of anti-opioid hysteria is concerning"
This is not the media's fault, nor is this is not chronic pain patients' faults. This is the result of criminal corruption and abuse in the pharmaceutical industry and distribution system. There is a real and enormous problem https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... (opioid overdose death rates have more than quadrupled in 20 years, are at a high level already versus other causes of death at 50k annually, and are accelerating). Opioids are some of the most dangerously addictive medicines that exist, and habituation and pill selling is a huge problem that is also ruining and ultimately costing lives.
This is not the media's fault, nor is this is not chronic pain patients' faults. This is the result of criminal corruption and abuse in the pharmaceutical industry and distribution system. There is a real and enormous problem https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... (opioid overdose death rates have more than quadrupled in 20 years, are at a high level already versus other causes of death at 50k annually, and are accelerating). Opioids are some of the most dangerously addictive medicines that exist, and habituation and pill selling is a huge problem that is also ruining and ultimately costing lives.
'hysteria' is the key word here. A blanket ban on more than 7 days of opioid medication is a hysterical reaction to the current problem. Sure, root out the corruption. Blame people and companies and even put people in jail if you think it will help. But in the meantime, it saves lives.
Also, as long as we're here, the reason pill-selling and whatnot exists is because of the war on drugs. But that's a larger discussion than what I/we can do here.
Also, as long as we're here, the reason pill-selling and whatnot exists is because of the war on drugs. But that's a larger discussion than what I/we can do here.
The fault belongs to the enforcement and the enforcement alone. No matter how extreme the criminals they still control their own actions. They cannot be allowed to pass the buck of their collateral damage for that lets them ignore their contribution entirely.
There are no statistics that show properly prescribed and taken opioids have anything to do with the crisis.
The crisis comes from illegal usage and tainted substances.
Sadly this is not clear from the statistics without digging into them, and few do.
That prescription opioids are significantly reduced, yet the death rate continues to climb indicates the focus on the current solution is in the wrong place.
No one, including me, denies "pill selling" is a problem. However that has zero to do with the people with Chronic Pain that are doing everything within the law.
There are bad doctors, and other bad actors, they need dealt with of course. Not at the expense that need such medication.
That prescription opioids are significantly reduced, yet the death rate continues to climb indicates the focus on the current solution is in the wrong place.
No one, including me, denies "pill selling" is a problem. However that has zero to do with the people with Chronic Pain that are doing everything within the law.
There are bad doctors, and other bad actors, they need dealt with of course. Not at the expense that need such medication.
>That prescription opioids are significantly reduced, yet the death rate continues to climb indicates the focus on the current solution is in the wrong place.
False. There has only been a minor reduction in sales. https://www.fda.gov/media/111695/download
Also, it just means those easy pain pill scripts are drying up, and people are turning to black market alternatives. It's cheaper and easier to import fentanyl from PRC and press it. Also leads to dosing errors (overwhelming cause of deaths).
False. There has only been a minor reduction in sales. https://www.fda.gov/media/111695/download
Also, it just means those easy pain pill scripts are drying up, and people are turning to black market alternatives. It's cheaper and easier to import fentanyl from PRC and press it. Also leads to dosing errors (overwhelming cause of deaths).
> The crisis comes from illegal usage and tainted substances. Sadly this is not clear from the statistics without digging into them, and few do.
The crisis was directly contributed by over-prescription ande the deliberate minimization of addiction risks. The crisis was exacerbated by then pushing these people off their legal prescription once they become addicted, forcing them into the black market.
> That prescription opioids are significantly reduced, yet the death rate continues to climb indicates the focus on the current solution is in the wrong place.
When you push more people into the black market, it is reasonable to expect that over-doses will rise.
> There are bad doctors, and other bad actors, they need dealt with of course. Not at the expense that need such medication
Yes, I agree. We are much better served by educating about and being aware of addiction risks than we are by limiting access to prescription medication because we are concerned a person is already addicted.
The crisis was directly contributed by over-prescription ande the deliberate minimization of addiction risks. The crisis was exacerbated by then pushing these people off their legal prescription once they become addicted, forcing them into the black market.
> That prescription opioids are significantly reduced, yet the death rate continues to climb indicates the focus on the current solution is in the wrong place.
When you push more people into the black market, it is reasonable to expect that over-doses will rise.
> There are bad doctors, and other bad actors, they need dealt with of course. Not at the expense that need such medication
Yes, I agree. We are much better served by educating about and being aware of addiction risks than we are by limiting access to prescription medication because we are concerned a person is already addicted.
[deleted]
The death rate from prescription opiates has not budged since 2006[1]. The vast majority of opiate overdoses in America are not prescription opiates, but illicit fentanyl, and to a lesser extent heroin and methadone. Nor do chronic pain patients face any major risk of overdose. The fatal overdose mortality rate for long-term opiate-prescribed patients is 17 per 100,000[2]. And that number doesn't exclude the subset of the population engaged in abusive behavior like mixing with alcohol, snorting pills, or hoarding medication.
Finally the sizable majority of prescription drug abusers in this country do not source from a doctor or the healthcare system at all. The vast majority get their drugs either from the black market or a friend or relative. On the National Drug Use Survey only 18% of prescription drug abusers report doctors as their primary source. And among street prostitutes (a high at-risk group) only 5%[3].
All of this goes to show that there is very little evidence of any sort of over-prescription of opiates in America. To begin with the vast majority of the opiate crisis has to do with fentanyl, not prescription drugs. But even when it comes to prescription drug abuse, the intersection with medical users is vanishingly small.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489635 [2] http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/health/APeeples0118_... [3] http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108...
Finally the sizable majority of prescription drug abusers in this country do not source from a doctor or the healthcare system at all. The vast majority get their drugs either from the black market or a friend or relative. On the National Drug Use Survey only 18% of prescription drug abusers report doctors as their primary source. And among street prostitutes (a high at-risk group) only 5%[3].
All of this goes to show that there is very little evidence of any sort of over-prescription of opiates in America. To begin with the vast majority of the opiate crisis has to do with fentanyl, not prescription drugs. But even when it comes to prescription drug abuse, the intersection with medical users is vanishingly small.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489635 [2] http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/health/APeeples0118_... [3] http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108...
You seem to have somewhat missed the point.
You are correct that chronic pain patients are not a high overdose risk and that there is little to no benefit to treating their prescriptions with suspicion. (People who don't have to operate in a black market are MUCH safer.)
Here is here you go wrong:
> All of this goes to show that there is very little evidence of any sort of over-prescription of opiates in America.
There is very clear evidence for over-prescription of opioids. There is very clear evidence that the risks of addiction were deliberately minimized by drug companies and doctors were incentivized to over-prescribe for as many off-label uses as possible.
The issue is: Anyone who does develop a problematic addiction to pill they are prescribed tends to have their access cut off and are thus forced into the black market where their chances of overdose increase dramatically.
Thus while users with drug prescriptions may not be overdosing at high rates, that does NOT mean that the black market overdoses are not directly causally related to the over-prescription of opioids.
> Finally the sizable majority of prescription drug abusers in this country do not source from a doctor or the healthcare system at all. The vast majority get their drugs either from the black market or a friend or relative.
They may not source directly from the healthcare system, but prescription diversion and fraud do indirectly source a lot of product from the the healthcare system. I suspect that crackdowns on this diversion helped spike the blackmarket opiod overdoses as it decreased the quality of the blackmarket supply (and thus increased the prevalence of Fentanyl.)
You are correct that chronic pain patients are not a high overdose risk and that there is little to no benefit to treating their prescriptions with suspicion. (People who don't have to operate in a black market are MUCH safer.)
Here is here you go wrong:
> All of this goes to show that there is very little evidence of any sort of over-prescription of opiates in America.
There is very clear evidence for over-prescription of opioids. There is very clear evidence that the risks of addiction were deliberately minimized by drug companies and doctors were incentivized to over-prescribe for as many off-label uses as possible.
The issue is: Anyone who does develop a problematic addiction to pill they are prescribed tends to have their access cut off and are thus forced into the black market where their chances of overdose increase dramatically.
Thus while users with drug prescriptions may not be overdosing at high rates, that does NOT mean that the black market overdoses are not directly causally related to the over-prescription of opioids.
> Finally the sizable majority of prescription drug abusers in this country do not source from a doctor or the healthcare system at all. The vast majority get their drugs either from the black market or a friend or relative.
They may not source directly from the healthcare system, but prescription diversion and fraud do indirectly source a lot of product from the the healthcare system. I suspect that crackdowns on this diversion helped spike the blackmarket opiod overdoses as it decreased the quality of the blackmarket supply (and thus increased the prevalence of Fentanyl.)
>All of this goes to show that there is very little evidence of any sort of over-prescription of opiates in America.
Ridiculous. It certainly does not, in any way, shape or form. Your "analysis" also excludes the very clear evidence that people get hooked on opioids from prescription pills and transition to black market products like fentanyl.
"The volumes of the pills handled by the companies climbed as the epidemic surged, increasing 51 percent from 8.4 billion in 2006 to 12.6 billion in 2012. By contrast, doses of morphine, a well-known treatment for severe pain, averaged slightly more than 500 million a year during the same period." https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/six-takeaways-...
Ridiculous. It certainly does not, in any way, shape or form. Your "analysis" also excludes the very clear evidence that people get hooked on opioids from prescription pills and transition to black market products like fentanyl.
"The volumes of the pills handled by the companies climbed as the epidemic surged, increasing 51 percent from 8.4 billion in 2006 to 12.6 billion in 2012. By contrast, doses of morphine, a well-known treatment for severe pain, averaged slightly more than 500 million a year during the same period." https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/six-takeaways-...
Only 0.19% of opiate-treated chronic pain patients without a prior history develop any form of abuse or addiction[1]. And remember these are chronic-pain patients who take tolerance-escalating doses over years or even decades. Virtually no one develops an opiate addiction from following their medically prescribed treatment regiment.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489635
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489635
>Virtually no one develops an opiate addiction from following their medically prescribed treatment regiment.
Completely false. You refer to data about a subsection of opioid prescriptions (chronic pain patients), and asserting broad claims that are not accurate.
"In just 10 months, the sixth-largest company in America shipped more than 3 million prescription opioids — nearly 10,000 pills a day on average — to a single pharmacy in a Southern West Virginia town with only 400 residents, according to a congressional report released Wednesday."
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/health/drug-firm-poured-m...
Completely false. You refer to data about a subsection of opioid prescriptions (chronic pain patients), and asserting broad claims that are not accurate.
"In just 10 months, the sixth-largest company in America shipped more than 3 million prescription opioids — nearly 10,000 pills a day on average — to a single pharmacy in a Southern West Virginia town with only 400 residents, according to a congressional report released Wednesday."
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/health/drug-firm-poured-m...
Illegal diversion in the supply chain does not tell us anything about whether the healthcare system is over-prescribing pain medication.
Let's just take your example. What do you believe is more plausible? That a town of 400 people are collectively prescribed 10,000 pills a day by well-meaning doctors? Or that the pharmacy from your example is a front for organized crime to funnel prescription opiates into the black market?
Let's just take your example. What do you believe is more plausible? That a town of 400 people are collectively prescribed 10,000 pills a day by well-meaning doctors? Or that the pharmacy from your example is a front for organized crime to funnel prescription opiates into the black market?
I fight this urge every day because of pain and have great empathy for both you and your wife. I was left in constant pain by badly done and, ultimately unneeded surgery. I have been off and on medication for many years now and have fought the system the entire time. I was recently cut off again after a long term doctor retired and the new options are all fairly hostile to pain patients.
The thing that is the hardest is that ultimately the best pain control for me is a safe and calm lifestyle and decent healthcare in the right conditions I can survive without medication, but with the loss of health and money goes your access to that lifestyle and healthcare, increasing the need for meds, at a time and situation in which you can least get them. I've tried nearly everything, at least that I can access, and that access, mainstream and alternative just gets worse here in the USA. I just need a small flat and a simple life in a city with connections and resources. I am stuck in the opposite.
I had a great, once in a lifetime, accomodative job opportunity abroad from a member here that I couldn't get to because of worsening pain and life stability and I sunk further as a result. Should have just gone and failed and gotten it over with rather than suffering more in worse conditions. It's a pit of quicksand once you get in it. It's hard enough in countries with good systems, but in the USA it's hopeless. I am now stuck in rural nowhere in so much pain with no good healthcare and transport and a horrid quality of life. I am over the debate and the "opiod crisis" and people's judgement here...I just want out and stable if thats even possible anymore, or it over. Tired of suffering every day.
The thing that is the hardest is that ultimately the best pain control for me is a safe and calm lifestyle and decent healthcare in the right conditions I can survive without medication, but with the loss of health and money goes your access to that lifestyle and healthcare, increasing the need for meds, at a time and situation in which you can least get them. I've tried nearly everything, at least that I can access, and that access, mainstream and alternative just gets worse here in the USA. I just need a small flat and a simple life in a city with connections and resources. I am stuck in the opposite.
I had a great, once in a lifetime, accomodative job opportunity abroad from a member here that I couldn't get to because of worsening pain and life stability and I sunk further as a result. Should have just gone and failed and gotten it over with rather than suffering more in worse conditions. It's a pit of quicksand once you get in it. It's hard enough in countries with good systems, but in the USA it's hopeless. I am now stuck in rural nowhere in so much pain with no good healthcare and transport and a horrid quality of life. I am over the debate and the "opiod crisis" and people's judgement here...I just want out and stable if thats even possible anymore, or it over. Tired of suffering every day.
Many underserved chronic pain patients are turning to growing their own, seed tea, and kratom. Might still be able to find decorative dried pods as well.
Dextromethorphan and grapefruit juice can potentiate to stretch out doses in times of drought.
Sorry to hear that our medical system is failing you. Truly immoral.
Dextromethorphan and grapefruit juice can potentiate to stretch out doses in times of drought.
Sorry to hear that our medical system is failing you. Truly immoral.
The FDA is on a Kratom witch hunt now.
Must remove anything that helps people.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-...
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-...
Seed tea could kill, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18489677
Yes, as can all opioids (or drugs in general). Biologicals are particularly challenging in this regard as potency can vary wildly. From what I've read, the people who use this regularly try to make very large batches to standardize and then titrate up slowly with every batch. It seems the son in that link was used to taking huge amount of washed seeds and then got an unwashed batch - so in a sad ironic way, the company's attempts to keep people from getting high led to his death.
Definitely risky, and not something I'd ever suggest for recreational purposes. Also important to know that many opiate tests look for non-intoxicating metabolites that are directly available in the poppy, so doctors may overestimate the amount of morphine the individual consumed: leading to overprescription in replacement therapies or overdose treatments, both of which can be dangerous.
Definitely risky, and not something I'd ever suggest for recreational purposes. Also important to know that many opiate tests look for non-intoxicating metabolites that are directly available in the poppy, so doctors may overestimate the amount of morphine the individual consumed: leading to overprescription in replacement therapies or overdose treatments, both of which can be dangerous.
The US solution to this problem is to sue to the surgeon and retire from the settlement
I didn't downvote you. I tried to sue after hearing from multiple doctors abroad how badly it was done and how I never needed it, but it's not like people think from TV and "common knowledge". It's hard to win malpractice. Most cases are not frivolous but people think they are all money grabs. The doctors and their insurance companies do things like insulate surgery centers in friendly counties and under special business arrangements etc. There are small caps and extremely short statutes of limitations on many things. Even if I had won 100%, which rarely happens according to the lawyers, after all was said and done I might have gotten 10,000usd max...and that's nothing for taking away a future. People don't understand the reality of medical errors and malpractice. Patients always lose.
A friend's wife underwent brain surgery ~8 years ago. She was prescribed pain medication for a long while.
At some point, she realized that she may be developing a bit of a pill problem. She went to her doctor, to see what could be worked out.
He listened her out, marked her down as drug-seeking, and cut her off, cold turkey.
Surprise, fucking surprise, the very next thing she did was to turn to black market oxy.
Eight years of rehab, rehab again, fighting, bargaining, threatening, and pleading, she's once again relapsed, and their marriage is falling apart.
I speculate that if it does, she'll likely be dead in a few years.
At some point, she realized that she may be developing a bit of a pill problem. She went to her doctor, to see what could be worked out.
He listened her out, marked her down as drug-seeking, and cut her off, cold turkey.
Surprise, fucking surprise, the very next thing she did was to turn to black market oxy.
Eight years of rehab, rehab again, fighting, bargaining, threatening, and pleading, she's once again relapsed, and their marriage is falling apart.
I speculate that if it does, she'll likely be dead in a few years.
Doctors aren't allowed to help people to recover from drug dependencies. If a doctor opens a clinic that gives people access to non contaminated drugs with a dosage that is controlled by a trained professional then it will be shut down because people get jealous that their tax money is spent on keeping junkies "high" when in reality the dosage gets lowered successively until no adverse health effects remain and the "high" almost completely disappears but still satisfies the dependency enough to prevent them from seeking out black market drugs. What most of the population also fails to realize is that the health effects of black market drugs are almost trivial compared to the financial damage they cause which has a far greater impact on the lifestyle of that person. You don't become a criminal or a prostitute when you spend $50 on "medication", but it's pretty much guaranteed when your "medication" costs you $1000 per month. For most people that's the difference between being homeless or not.
I've been through that over and over with doctors turning hostile and outright lying and am going through it again now after the worst year I have ever had pain wise. I never took a LOT by any measure, in fact very small doses just to get by, and only about half of the days in any given year as I cycled off and when situations were calmer. I have avoided seeking stronger things offline and will off myself before going there as its costly in every way and has no good outcome. I have a sensitive corpus it seems and can't take a lot of any medication, a built defense against massive addiction I am thankful for in a way, or else I probably would have ended up like some of the worst victims in a gutter using heroin. But I guess in the end what does it matter if you cannot get better anyway. Ultimately people just want to stop hurting and don't care about people's politics...and when it gets like this, and doctors and society and families are so hostile and blaming, the only plausible thing becomes stopping the existence that hurts.
The whole situation is already the product of too much left-brain imperative thinking, but I have to wonder if a basic suit for medical malpractice would have legs. The doctor in question essentially got her physically addicted, and then when told of the symptoms, unilaterally chose a wildly inappropriate "treatment" which exacerbated that addiction.
Dr Myles Gart wrote a piece entitled “Pain is not the fifth vital sign” Medical Economics on May 20th, 2017.
http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics...
This is my reply to Dr Gart's editorial, edited to fit the format here the best I can.
“… First and foremost, we must bury the claim of pain being the fifth vital sign and replace it with a 21st Century pain assessment tool that incorporates objective evidence and measures of pain. …”
Dr Gart, at this moment are you hungry? In your lifetime have you ever been hungry? Hunger is a type of pain. Did you treat that pain by consuming a substance?
Please correct me if I am wrong. To my knowledge there is no objective test, no simple Pain Meter, that will show me that you are hungry. Yes we could look at enzymes and such. Will that truly tell me just how hungry you are objectively?
If there is no objective test for a pain as simple as hunger, that each of us experience most every day, what hope does a person in Chronic Pain have?
In Ohio the Governor is now practicing medicine by decreeing that there can be no more than seven days of opiate pain medication. Perhaps he should discuss that with the person that was hit by a train and survived with most every bone broken.
My wife Karen died of suicide to stop the pain she experienced for over over 20 years, due to the failure of the Medical Establishment as a whole. THIS IS THE REALITY OF Chronic Pain.
"Karen's Journal of CSF Leak Headaches and Chronic Pain: How Intracranial Hypotension and Levaquin (Levofloxacin) Killed Me"
is now required reading at Duke School of Medicine to educate future Neurologists about the realities of Chronic Pain.
A local reporter wrote in a Cover Story:
"Karen's first-hand account of her illness gave an honest, heart-wrenching depiction of what it is like to live with debilitating pain day-to-day." – http://www.kpaddock.org
May I humbly suggest you read it.
See for FDA links on the antibiotic issue [at http://www.kpaddock.com/fq ].
In book form it has been edited by a medical doctor that has the same condition has Karen had. When bought through the Spinal CSF Leak Foundation 100% of the royalties go to them, to support them, just in case anyone thinks I'm posting this to promote the book for profit myself. The book can be read for free at http://mystory.kpaddock.com for free.
I do not know what motivated you to write your article. I do know from it that far more time needs to be spent with people in Chronic Pain, to understand the realities of their life.
When a person in Chronic Pain that has been taking opiate pain medication under a competent doctors supervision for ten years, is able to function, take care of their family, hold a job, is without warning told then can not have it any more, “tough luck”. What are they to do? They resort to street drugs and become the very victims this currently policy is trying to prevent.
People in Chronic Pain have typically already tried multiple rounds of physical therapy, bio-feedback, meditation, exercise and the list goes on, with no relief from the pain. What are they to do?
Not having Chronic Pain myself, I will never claim to understand it. I did watch my wife suffer with it for 20+ years. What exactly is the agenda here? None of us such as Advocates like myself nor the sufferers have figured this out yet. Can anyone please explain? To us it appears as an attack on the most vulnerable.
This is one of the many comments I received about your article: “…Chronic problems frustrate doctors and they blame the patient rather than look at themselves. …” or support research to find real solutions to Chronic Pain. No one chooses to live with Chronic Pain each and every moment of their lives.
http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics...
This is my reply to Dr Gart's editorial, edited to fit the format here the best I can.
“… First and foremost, we must bury the claim of pain being the fifth vital sign and replace it with a 21st Century pain assessment tool that incorporates objective evidence and measures of pain. …”
Dr Gart, at this moment are you hungry? In your lifetime have you ever been hungry? Hunger is a type of pain. Did you treat that pain by consuming a substance?
Please correct me if I am wrong. To my knowledge there is no objective test, no simple Pain Meter, that will show me that you are hungry. Yes we could look at enzymes and such. Will that truly tell me just how hungry you are objectively?
If there is no objective test for a pain as simple as hunger, that each of us experience most every day, what hope does a person in Chronic Pain have?
In Ohio the Governor is now practicing medicine by decreeing that there can be no more than seven days of opiate pain medication. Perhaps he should discuss that with the person that was hit by a train and survived with most every bone broken.
My wife Karen died of suicide to stop the pain she experienced for over over 20 years, due to the failure of the Medical Establishment as a whole. THIS IS THE REALITY OF Chronic Pain.
"Karen's Journal of CSF Leak Headaches and Chronic Pain: How Intracranial Hypotension and Levaquin (Levofloxacin) Killed Me"
is now required reading at Duke School of Medicine to educate future Neurologists about the realities of Chronic Pain.
A local reporter wrote in a Cover Story:
"Karen's first-hand account of her illness gave an honest, heart-wrenching depiction of what it is like to live with debilitating pain day-to-day." – http://www.kpaddock.org
May I humbly suggest you read it.
See for FDA links on the antibiotic issue [at http://www.kpaddock.com/fq ].
In book form it has been edited by a medical doctor that has the same condition has Karen had. When bought through the Spinal CSF Leak Foundation 100% of the royalties go to them, to support them, just in case anyone thinks I'm posting this to promote the book for profit myself. The book can be read for free at http://mystory.kpaddock.com for free.
I do not know what motivated you to write your article. I do know from it that far more time needs to be spent with people in Chronic Pain, to understand the realities of their life.
When a person in Chronic Pain that has been taking opiate pain medication under a competent doctors supervision for ten years, is able to function, take care of their family, hold a job, is without warning told then can not have it any more, “tough luck”. What are they to do? They resort to street drugs and become the very victims this currently policy is trying to prevent.
People in Chronic Pain have typically already tried multiple rounds of physical therapy, bio-feedback, meditation, exercise and the list goes on, with no relief from the pain. What are they to do?
Not having Chronic Pain myself, I will never claim to understand it. I did watch my wife suffer with it for 20+ years. What exactly is the agenda here? None of us such as Advocates like myself nor the sufferers have figured this out yet. Can anyone please explain? To us it appears as an attack on the most vulnerable.
This is one of the many comments I received about your article: “…Chronic problems frustrate doctors and they blame the patient rather than look at themselves. …” or support research to find real solutions to Chronic Pain. No one chooses to live with Chronic Pain each and every moment of their lives.
> Dr Gart, at this moment are you hungry? In your lifetime have you ever been hungry? Hunger is a type of pain. Did you treat that pain by consuming a substance?
If you don't eat you die. Do you die if you don't consumer pain killers? No you don't.
This is similar to the nonsense peddled by people who claim anti-depressants are the same as insulin and various other snake-oil salespeople.
If you don't eat you die. Do you die if you don't consumer pain killers? No you don't.
This is similar to the nonsense peddled by people who claim anti-depressants are the same as insulin and various other snake-oil salespeople.
> Do you die if you don't consumer pain killers? No you don't.
Do you notice you are replying to a comment about somebody that did, right?
Not every problem is simple.
Do you notice you are replying to a comment about somebody that did, right?
Not every problem is simple.
Have you ever suffered constant pain, of the sort where you really can't think of anything else? I have been fortunate to have such events rarely, and then in spans measured in hours. But the intensity is enough to give me a notion of what others have gone through. The people I know who have used heavy-duty pain killers have not wanted to get stoned--one in particular despised the fuzzy feeling--they have wanted to function.
It's a losing game putting out reasonable arguments as to why this hysteria is bad.
Some people want to control others and just don't care what the reality is.
They would never ban alcohol, they consume it.
They would never ban cars; they drive them.
They would never ban fast food; they eat it.
They will never ban sugar; they love it.
All of these things have cause a million times more misery than opioids ever have, by all measurable statistics (deaths, injury, domestic violence, etc)
But if there is something someone is doing that they aren't, their measurement of pros and cons will change. Statistics and comparable things of pleasure/damage will never be considered.
Some people want to control others and just don't care what the reality is.
They would never ban alcohol, they consume it.
They would never ban cars; they drive them.
They would never ban fast food; they eat it.
They will never ban sugar; they love it.
All of these things have cause a million times more misery than opioids ever have, by all measurable statistics (deaths, injury, domestic violence, etc)
But if there is something someone is doing that they aren't, their measurement of pros and cons will change. Statistics and comparable things of pleasure/damage will never be considered.
> But if there is something someone is doing that they aren't, their measurement of pros and cons will change. Statistics and comparable things of pleasure/damage will never be considered.
HN is also guilty of this in otver contexts.
HN is also guilty of this in otver contexts.
I think we are all guilty of this to a degree. We all measure risk/reward differently when the risk is perceived to be on our side and the reward on the other side.
The issue with perception is universal. We all feel these things.
How we act though? That's a choice. We can choose to read statistics and let our 'slow thinking' brain take over. But it has to be a choice and that lies with each of us.
The issue with perception is universal. We all feel these things.
How we act though? That's a choice. We can choose to read statistics and let our 'slow thinking' brain take over. But it has to be a choice and that lies with each of us.
You may commit suicide, though.
*die of suicide, as a side effect of chronic unrelievable pain
[deleted]
The comment above clearly stated that someone died of pain.
Your refusal to believe that illnesses can affect the brain is obsolete thinking.
Your refusal to believe that illnesses can affect the brain is obsolete thinking.
The solution for chronic pain is to prescribe opiates on an ongoing basis. The solution for addiction is to prescribe opiates on an ongoing basis. That might be methadone or suboxone or something more common like oxycodone or morphine. What happened to your wife should never have happened. It's tragic that incompetent organizations like the CDC and others still haven't realized this and are driven by unscientific drug war hysteria rather than scientific approaches to recovery. Not only do addicts suffer, but chronic pain sufferers also suffer. Often there is no difference between the two groups.
I am sorry for your loss.
I don't buy this line of argument.
If the news reflects the medical community's POV and the medical community is wrong, that makes them "complicit"?
>Piece after piece told readers, including young doctors and medical students like me, that pain was under-treated and opioids were safe. Outlets championed a paradigm shift in the way we thought about pain relief. Pain joined body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing rate as the fifth vital sign.
Was that untrue? I remember those stories, lots of doctors were advocating for a change on how pain was treated.
The article straight up says that the medical community thought opioids were the answer.
Should the news media have rejected the medical community's position and suggested people use something else? Essential oils? Some sort of anti vax message?
The medical community might want to think twice about telling the news media or anyone else that they should have disregarded their expertise in the past as I'm not sure they'd like it if that happened today...
If the news reflects the medical community's POV and the medical community is wrong, that makes them "complicit"?
>Piece after piece told readers, including young doctors and medical students like me, that pain was under-treated and opioids were safe. Outlets championed a paradigm shift in the way we thought about pain relief. Pain joined body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing rate as the fifth vital sign.
Was that untrue? I remember those stories, lots of doctors were advocating for a change on how pain was treated.
The article straight up says that the medical community thought opioids were the answer.
Should the news media have rejected the medical community's position and suggested people use something else? Essential oils? Some sort of anti vax message?
The medical community might want to think twice about telling the news media or anyone else that they should have disregarded their expertise in the past as I'm not sure they'd like it if that happened today...
>If the news reflects the medical community's POV and the medical community is wrong, that makes them "complicit"?
The expectation is that news are independent and practice journalism and they don't just take anyone at their word.
The expectation is that news are independent and practice journalism and they don't just take anyone at their word.
(I'm not taking a side on whether the opiod question is correct, just talking about the process of journalism.)
The press's ability as an institution to contradict another institution has practical limits.
In particular, if the broader medical community is largely on board with opiods, for a journalist to write a story, they have to get comments from medical authorities.
If those comments are consistently saying that opiods are necessary and good for pain management, an ethical journalist can't just ignore all those comments and harp on a few outliers.
And for a story to catch on, other journalists have to, in effect, replicate that work: they have to do their own investigations, but they're going to get a similar distribution of comments.
The press can typically focus on an institution if there's a particular scandal involving specific people or entities because then their questions become more targeted.
The press's ability as an institution to contradict another institution has practical limits.
In particular, if the broader medical community is largely on board with opiods, for a journalist to write a story, they have to get comments from medical authorities.
If those comments are consistently saying that opiods are necessary and good for pain management, an ethical journalist can't just ignore all those comments and harp on a few outliers.
And for a story to catch on, other journalists have to, in effect, replicate that work: they have to do their own investigations, but they're going to get a similar distribution of comments.
The press can typically focus on an institution if there's a particular scandal involving specific people or entities because then their questions become more targeted.
>If those comments are consistently saying that opiods are necessary and good for pain management, an ethical journalist can't just ignore all those comments and harp on a few outliers.
They can. And they must.
Would you make this same argument when journalists cover fiance or war? In the case of the former, there is usually 'irrational exuberance' that emanates from financial professionals that inevitably leads to a crash. Journalist should just take that at face value when the finance industry says subprime derivatives are great?
How about the latter, war. Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions?
If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet? I can go and read what the various agencies have to say without a middle-man.
They can. And they must.
Would you make this same argument when journalists cover fiance or war? In the case of the former, there is usually 'irrational exuberance' that emanates from financial professionals that inevitably leads to a crash. Journalist should just take that at face value when the finance industry says subprime derivatives are great?
How about the latter, war. Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions?
If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet? I can go and read what the various agencies have to say without a middle-man.
> Would you make this same argument when journalists cover fi[n]ance or war?
Yes. A journalist's job is to report news, not make it. Activist journalism has virtually destroyed the reputation of the press.
What good is any coverage if your audience thinks you're dishonest?
> Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions?
They should not be distorting their coverage of the answers.
> If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet?
Activist journalism is just a mouthpiece for interest groups.
Yes. A journalist's job is to report news, not make it. Activist journalism has virtually destroyed the reputation of the press.
What good is any coverage if your audience thinks you're dishonest?
> Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions?
They should not be distorting their coverage of the answers.
> If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet?
Activist journalism is just a mouthpiece for interest groups.
OK.
You're arguing a straw-man. Who is actually defending journalists that distort the news?
You're arguing a straw-man. Who is actually defending journalists that distort the news?
>they don't just take anyone at their word.
How does that work exactly?
Doctor's say they're not treating pain properly and they feel opioids are a good option to do that.
What exactly should a journalist do then?
Not report it?
Do some science?
How does that work exactly?
Doctor's say they're not treating pain properly and they feel opioids are a good option to do that.
What exactly should a journalist do then?
Not report it?
Do some science?
> What exactly should a journalist do then?
First of all, ideally you'll leave those topics for your journalist buddies that actually know what they write about because they've been in medicine. If those aren't around: talk to other doctors, preferable some that are not being paid by a pharma company, to see whether they agree.
The same is true when your government tells you that all the intelligence sources agree and $desertCountry has lots of $wmd and is planning to conquer the world by doing $evilThing and $ourAlliance needs to invade now. Granted, the news media hasn't done a good job there either, you could say they were complicit by uncritically repeating propaganda.
First of all, ideally you'll leave those topics for your journalist buddies that actually know what they write about because they've been in medicine. If those aren't around: talk to other doctors, preferable some that are not being paid by a pharma company, to see whether they agree.
The same is true when your government tells you that all the intelligence sources agree and $desertCountry has lots of $wmd and is planning to conquer the world by doing $evilThing and $ourAlliance needs to invade now. Granted, the news media hasn't done a good job there either, you could say they were complicit by uncritically repeating propaganda.
Will those journalist buddies ever know more than actual doctors?
They'll usually know as much, and often more, yes (their job isn't to treat people but to write about treating people, that gives them more time & incentive to learn). At the very least, they know enough to be cautious when they encounter some claims. It'd be easy for me to convince a general journalist that Perl is the language of tomorrow. It'll be much harder to convince a journalist that has worked in software development and still keeps up.
A journalist that has a medical background can judge these things much better, can actually read studies and understands the monetary incentives given by pharma companies - and in most cases they are not part of the game, they are not paid to shill.
A journalist that has a medical background can judge these things much better, can actually read studies and understands the monetary incentives given by pharma companies - and in most cases they are not part of the game, they are not paid to shill.
So... journalists should have spent their free time self learning their way to a medical degree? Let's not forget stats as well since they'll need to read and understand hundreds of medical studies.
Journalists cannot be experts in every field they report on.
Journalists cannot be experts in every field they report on.
>journalists should have spent their free time self learning their way to a medical degree?
Maybe. There are journalists with technical backgrounds. But let's leave that aside.
Are you telling me you can't find experts to explain the nuances of the particular policies? Take the example of Theranos. While the company was getting fawning press coverage, there were many specialists that were calling bullshit on their claims, from medical professional, university professors, to even competitors.
Maybe. There are journalists with technical backgrounds. But let's leave that aside.
Are you telling me you can't find experts to explain the nuances of the particular policies? Take the example of Theranos. While the company was getting fawning press coverage, there were many specialists that were calling bullshit on their claims, from medical professional, university professors, to even competitors.
>Are you telling me you can't find experts to explain the nuances of the particular policies?
Would those experts be... medical professionals?
Would those experts be... medical professionals?
>Would those experts be... medical professionals?
Yes. The point is there is never uniformity of opinion. For every disastrous policy, in hindsight, there were multitude of voices raising concerns. A good journalist will be able to talk to with experts and get down to the meat of the matter and deliver the information to the public.
Yes. The point is there is never uniformity of opinion. For every disastrous policy, in hindsight, there were multitude of voices raising concerns. A good journalist will be able to talk to with experts and get down to the meat of the matter and deliver the information to the public.
But the expert consensus at the time was that the (now known to be problematic) course of treatment was correct. Do you have evidence that there was evidence to the contrary during the relevant period of time?
You sure that was the consensus? Did other nations adopt this same policy, or were they more skeptical? If so, why were they sceptical?
> that makes them "complicit"?
By 2019 standards the news, the politicians, the doctors, are all "complicit in the opioid crisis" because they didn't predict the present state of affairs back in 1999 (or thereabouts) and work against it.
If everybody is complicit then nobody is. It makes for eyeball grabbing titles though.
By 2019 standards the news, the politicians, the doctors, are all "complicit in the opioid crisis" because they didn't predict the present state of affairs back in 1999 (or thereabouts) and work against it.
If everybody is complicit then nobody is. It makes for eyeball grabbing titles though.
It is a lot easier to parrot the talking points of someone pushing a sales narrative in an interview or through conferences than doing the footwork and ask hard questions e.g. why prescription numbers were skyrocketing in the US and not so much elsewhere on this globe.
"Chronic pain is widespread and under-treated" may well still be true. It's just that opioids do carry a risk of addiction. This is partly why so many states have started legalizing marijuana, medical or otherwise.
I don't really like this article's tone of press-blaming: ultimately the medical profession has to take responsibility for its treatment, both under- or over-treatment, and has its own responsbility to find out the facts and disseminate them through professional channels.
I don't really like this article's tone of press-blaming: ultimately the medical profession has to take responsibility for its treatment, both under- or over-treatment, and has its own responsbility to find out the facts and disseminate them through professional channels.
Yes, but controversy sells papers. Ultimately the blame is on the pharmaceutical industries, the doctors, and yes the patients.
People are looking for anyone to blame. Drug reps. Doctors. Pharmaceutical firms.
Now we've entered the "politicians/the media is to blame" stage.
When something goes wrong in this spectacular a fashion, you can bet people will try to lay blame wherever they can. But probably the truth is that this was on all of us. Doctors for prescribing without disseminating incredibly pertinent information, Parmas for creating "medicinal" opioids in the first place, politicians for not admitting the need for stronger regulation earlier, media for not covering the story better earlier, the people for being in denial about the obvious signs of addiction in their friends and loved ones. I mean the list probably goes on and on.
Now we've entered the "politicians/the media is to blame" stage.
When something goes wrong in this spectacular a fashion, you can bet people will try to lay blame wherever they can. But probably the truth is that this was on all of us. Doctors for prescribing without disseminating incredibly pertinent information, Parmas for creating "medicinal" opioids in the first place, politicians for not admitting the need for stronger regulation earlier, media for not covering the story better earlier, the people for being in denial about the obvious signs of addiction in their friends and loved ones. I mean the list probably goes on and on.
You're missing the elephant in the room.
Our society's piss-poor ability to deal with addiction.
Once the system recognizes you as an addict, the moral crusaders in our justice system will do their damn best to limit you to provably ineffective forms of treatment, like 12-step programs. Methadone maintenance? Don't even think about it. Getting you off black-market drugs? Don't even think about it.
While everyone's busy arguing about who is at fault for getting millions of people addicted, we continue to treat addiction like we are still in the 'leeching and trepanning' stage of medicine.
Our society's piss-poor ability to deal with addiction.
Once the system recognizes you as an addict, the moral crusaders in our justice system will do their damn best to limit you to provably ineffective forms of treatment, like 12-step programs. Methadone maintenance? Don't even think about it. Getting you off black-market drugs? Don't even think about it.
While everyone's busy arguing about who is at fault for getting millions of people addicted, we continue to treat addiction like we are still in the 'leeching and trepanning' stage of medicine.
I'm with you on this.
It's like conspiracy theories - people WANT someone to point to and say, "that is the person in charge, they're the reason this has happened."
When in most cases, a really, truly shitty situation like this one does rely on the action of a few, powerful, bad actors, but mostly it's daily choices to simply not think made by all of us.
It's like conspiracy theories - people WANT someone to point to and say, "that is the person in charge, they're the reason this has happened."
When in most cases, a really, truly shitty situation like this one does rely on the action of a few, powerful, bad actors, but mostly it's daily choices to simply not think made by all of us.
Instead of banning any advertising of prescription meds to the general public.
The companies typically pay the doctors, donate to the politicians and buy ads in the news media for friendly reporting. "Who is to blame" is not that hard to figure out, the more subtle question is whether those who took the money and provided the services are complicit or whether they were totally bamboozled and just didn't do their jobs well.
There is general lack of basic scientific knowledge for those working in the media and too much cut & paste.
However, Doctors should have known better - opioids are not some new fangled treatment for goodness sake[1]
Doctors are highly trained, highly paid and their failure is central to the opioid crisis.
[1] In fact they are one of the first modern medicines - a wonder drug - then people realized the downsides. That was over 100 years ago.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum#History https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium...
However, Doctors should have known better - opioids are not some new fangled treatment for goodness sake[1]
Doctors are highly trained, highly paid and their failure is central to the opioid crisis.
[1] In fact they are one of the first modern medicines - a wonder drug - then people realized the downsides. That was over 100 years ago.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum#History https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium...
These days I don't think you can blame the media for anything without blaming the advertising industry as the upstream cause. We distribute unbundled nuggets of content that are optimized to get clicks (and to drive click rate, meaning you have to make your impact and turn the consumer around as quickly as you can), because that's what's incentivized by advertising-based revenue streams. Those optimizations are not compatible with accurate and balanced coverage of nuanced issues.
I assume something similar was true in the 90s, or starting to be true, but I don't have as good an understanding of how it all worked back then.
I assume something similar was true in the 90s, or starting to be true, but I don't have as good an understanding of how it all worked back then.
It's pretty absurd to shift the blame to advertising.
This wasn't the age of clickbait and adtech, this was over 20 years ago. 24 hour news channels like Fox News and MSNBC were in their infancy. Isn't there some responsibility to be had to uphold journalistic integrity?
If anything, this article shows the danger of pop science and journalists writing authoritatively about things they don't understand well.
This wasn't the age of clickbait and adtech, this was over 20 years ago. 24 hour news channels like Fox News and MSNBC were in their infancy. Isn't there some responsibility to be had to uphold journalistic integrity?
If anything, this article shows the danger of pop science and journalists writing authoritatively about things they don't understand well.
Maybe you missed the first two words of my comment: "these days". I did not restrict my context to 20 years ago, because neither does the linked article.
Why is it that when “rural America” and the suburbs got caught up in a drug epidemic people blame the media, corporations, the lack of opportunity, and call it an illness, but when it was happening in the “inner city” it was all about “the culture”, “moral failings”, “getting tough on crime”, and “the war on drugs”.
I wonder what could the difference possibly be....
I wonder what could the difference possibly be....
because far too many in the political arena needed the crisis and as such had little real interest in solving it. it served both as a source of funds for campaigns and family as well as a means to keep opponents at a distance for fear of being branded. so simply working the selected voters gives them a solid base, one they can turn out for any affront, and one which will accept being told who the bogeyman is as long as it means never having to look in the mirror.
it is the same reason a school shooting, usually in predominantly suburban non minority areas whereas many more than that die in cities weekly.
political power is all about using problems for gain, not solving problems. while it can work in outlying areas it does not have the quick payback the city machine can. go look at the social interest groups, the community coordinator type jobs, and you will see friends and family if not down on their luck politicians who know which team to be on.
it is the same reason a school shooting, usually in predominantly suburban non minority areas whereas many more than that die in cities weekly.
political power is all about using problems for gain, not solving problems. while it can work in outlying areas it does not have the quick payback the city machine can. go look at the social interest groups, the community coordinator type jobs, and you will see friends and family if not down on their luck politicians who know which team to be on.
> I wonder what could the difference possibly be....
People are reluctant to think the government is capable of what they did...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_Messenger_(2014_film)
People are reluctant to think the government is capable of what they did...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_Messenger_(2014_film)
That in the former case, the drugs in question are given to you by your country's medical system, while in the latter case, you have to procure them yourself on a black market?
I’m not saying that chronic pain isn’t real or shouldn’t be treated, but many of the abusers are “drug seeking” patients who go to different doctors to get prescriptions and many of the doctors are illegally prescribing the drugs. Opioids also end up on the black market and definitely they all aren’t bought legally.
Also, it is public knowledge that the government looked the other way and protected drug growers in South America in the 80s because it was more concerned with the Cold War.
Also, it is public knowledge that the government looked the other way and protected drug growers in South America in the 80s because it was more concerned with the Cold War.
The thing is while a worryingly large minority of addicts used their prescribed medication first (including not taking as directed) the majority still used it illicitly either through street sources or stealing from those with legitimate needs.
There is still an obvious empathy gap and double standard.
There is still an obvious empathy gap and double standard.
> There is still an obvious empathy gap and double standard.
Well, no, there isn't obviously one. You seem to be alluding the the crack epidemic and the Just Say No / DARE types.
No one was getting hooked on crack after being prescribed medicinal cocaine by their doctor.
It is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
A more apt one would be the methamphetamine epidemic that preceded the opi(ate|oid) epidemic. Plenty of moral panic in the news, precious few folks gave a damn about the redneck tweakers.
Well, no, there isn't obviously one. You seem to be alluding the the crack epidemic and the Just Say No / DARE types.
No one was getting hooked on crack after being prescribed medicinal cocaine by their doctor.
It is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
A more apt one would be the methamphetamine epidemic that preceded the opi(ate|oid) epidemic. Plenty of moral panic in the news, precious few folks gave a damn about the redneck tweakers.
The government was actively supporting drug cartels during the Cold War. They were looking the other way as it was bought into the US.
Even if opioids are prescribed legally at first - abusers are getting it illegally later.
Even if opioids are prescribed legally at first - abusers are getting it illegally later.
That's true, but sort of side stepping the issue. Why is it that the country's medical system was willing to feed addiction-level quantities of abusable chemicals into some communities and not others?
In any case, there are large quantities of illegal drugs feeding the "opioid" crisis as well, though. Fentanyl didn't happen in a vacuum, it was pushed at people having trouble getting oxycodone. And yet we don't hear talk on FOX about the horrors of the appalachian cartels bringing this garbage across the border.
In any case, there are large quantities of illegal drugs feeding the "opioid" crisis as well, though. Fentanyl didn't happen in a vacuum, it was pushed at people having trouble getting oxycodone. And yet we don't hear talk on FOX about the horrors of the appalachian cartels bringing this garbage across the border.
> yet we don't hear talk on FOX about the horrors of the appalachian cartels bringing this garbage across the border.
Perhaps you should do some research on the methamphetamine crisis. Plenty of hand-wringing over tweaker shake-and-bake operations and rural labs.
Perhaps you should do some research on the methamphetamine crisis. Plenty of hand-wringing over tweaker shake-and-bake operations and rural labs.
Maybe hands were wrung, I won't dispute that. And yet not demands for public action like there were in the 80's about inner city drugs. No "war on meth" was ever declared. No huge increases in law enforcement funding arrived in the rural west. No steeper penalties for meth were ever passed that I'm aware of. No focus on three strikes legislation to "clean up Colorado". The media coverage was an illustrative example, the story is about decades of deeply unfair prosecution via law enforcement of what in other demographics is deemed a social ill.
But agreed: hands were wrung about meth.
But agreed: hands were wrung about meth.
> No "war on meth" was ever declared. No huge increases in law enforcement funding arrived in the rural west.
Half of my family goes back to Appalachia, used to very several times a year. I can tell you anecdotally that there very much was there, though I doubt anyone would say "War on Meth" since there's already the "War on Drugs." Legislations, penalties, etc. increased in that neck of the woods. I've had junkies in my family (meth, heroin, oxy, etc.) in and out of jail most of my life. Hell, one of my buddies is an old meth cook. Man never graduated high school, but if you talk to him about the chemistry you'd think he was a university graduate.
Hell, one time on my way to school we couldn't get out of the neighborhood because someone discovered a shake-and-bake setup and the police, (fire) HAZMAT trucks were blocking the entire road. Everyone had to call off work or school that day while they cleaned it up.
I don't mean to be needlessly curt, but if you think there is something magical about the opi(ate|oid) crisis it is because you weren't well aware of preceding ones.
Half of my family goes back to Appalachia, used to very several times a year. I can tell you anecdotally that there very much was there, though I doubt anyone would say "War on Meth" since there's already the "War on Drugs." Legislations, penalties, etc. increased in that neck of the woods. I've had junkies in my family (meth, heroin, oxy, etc.) in and out of jail most of my life. Hell, one of my buddies is an old meth cook. Man never graduated high school, but if you talk to him about the chemistry you'd think he was a university graduate.
Hell, one time on my way to school we couldn't get out of the neighborhood because someone discovered a shake-and-bake setup and the police, (fire) HAZMAT trucks were blocking the entire road. Everyone had to call off work or school that day while they cleaned it up.
I don't mean to be needlessly curt, but if you think there is something magical about the opi(ate|oid) crisis it is because you weren't well aware of preceding ones.
probably the decades of people pointing out that the latter was wrong and research on addiction
This decade’s suburbs also have minorities hopped up on opioids.
You’ll never get resolution on the race baiting observation. You’ll never find it productive to try to get revenge by enacting the same failed policies “more equally”.
Yes, there are some people that are simply playing a game of power for people that look similar to them.
Now back to addressing the current problem holistically.
You’ll never get resolution on the race baiting observation. You’ll never find it productive to try to get revenge by enacting the same failed policies “more equally”.
Yes, there are some people that are simply playing a game of power for people that look similar to them.
Now back to addressing the current problem holistically.
There is also plenty of studies that even in the same neighborhoods, Blacks are prosecuted more harshly for the same crime...
And the “same policies” are still in force in the inner cities and there are different policies in the burbs in rural America.
And the “same policies” are still in force in the inner cities and there are different policies in the burbs in rural America.
Yes, I’m aware.
This isn't one of those cases. Minorities being prosecuted for using prescribed opioids isn't exactly what is happening en masse here.
This isn't one of those cases. Minorities being prosecuted for using prescribed opioids isn't exactly what is happening en masse here.
That is no different than until recently, crack had much harsher penalties than the same amount of cocaine. Crack was seen as an “inner city”. How many minorities do you really think live in what most people classify as “rural America” or even the suburbs?
Not that I am saying that I have ever gotten a racist vibe where I live, but let’s just say that every place we go in our part of metro Atlanta, we stand out.
Every study shows that most Blacks live in a majority minority neighborhood.
Not that I am saying that I have ever gotten a racist vibe where I live, but let’s just say that every place we go in our part of metro Atlanta, we stand out.
Every study shows that most Blacks live in a majority minority neighborhood.
I get that you have an axe to grind and want to influence public policy but this opioid crisis just already has enveloped everyone under its ‘mental health’ umbrella. There wont be a resolution on the disparity of enforcement tactics.
Basically I’m just not having that particular conversation with you because thats not what this thread is about, and its clear you only want to derail into your writing prompt. The irony isn't lost on anyone, lots of people have seen the Dave Chapelle "Sticks and Stones" standup.
The structure of this crisis is prescribed drugs. So consumers of any color wont go to jail, and big pharma execs wont go to jail. Perhaps some particularly excessive doctors will, and feel free to make a statistical analysis of their ethnicity and socioeconomic status to find a correlation that matches your distress.
People using unprescribed and scheduled opioids still face law enforcement pressure.
Basically I’m just not having that particular conversation with you because thats not what this thread is about, and its clear you only want to derail into your writing prompt. The irony isn't lost on anyone, lots of people have seen the Dave Chapelle "Sticks and Stones" standup.
The structure of this crisis is prescribed drugs. So consumers of any color wont go to jail, and big pharma execs wont go to jail. Perhaps some particularly excessive doctors will, and feel free to make a statistical analysis of their ethnicity and socioeconomic status to find a correlation that matches your distress.
People using unprescribed and scheduled opioids still face law enforcement pressure.
You really think that everyone abusing opioids is obtaining them
Legally? This “thread” is about blaming the media and not placing blame on “the parents”, “the culture”, “the lack of personal responsibility”, etc that was placed on the “inner city”.
rolltiide(1)
Because race is still a driving divider in our society.
Why is it that when someone says a group was complicit in something that affected rural America that blame is being shifted solely on that group because of racism? Everyone is aware. Give it a rest.
Not everyone is aware of the extent and power of institutional oppression in America, and we can think of more than one thing at once. Realizing the double-standard doesn't prevent me from being upset at the institutional powers that got rural America addicted to opioids.
For the same reason why when race is presented as a contributing factor, people say "give it a rest." 'Those who choose to ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.' Society must accept that race relations has played and does play a role in how we tackle issue.
Recently had a conversation about "inner city" communities with a coworker. We're in Baltimore and she's an immigrant from Russia. She's concerned about the aggressive behavior/vandalism/crime of "inner city youths" - but being new to this country, she's unaware of how they got there/came to be there in the first place. Slaves fled to northern cities like Baltimore with nothing. Post-slavery, the communities and wealth they built were in most cases repeatedly destroyed/quashed/displaced by racists holding positions of power. The anger seen today is from being constantly cheated, generation by generation, by people who claim to have the moral high ground.
In the case of Baltimore, Wells Fargo employees targeted black families for subprime home mortgages in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis, even when they qualified for conventional mortgages with lower rates.
Wells Fargo organized events for African Americans on "how to build generational wealth," but internally said they were selling "ghetto loans" to "mud people."
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html
https://consumerist.com/5283290/affidavits-on-how-wells-farg...
Wells Fargo organized events for African Americans on "how to build generational wealth," but internally said they were selling "ghetto loans" to "mud people."
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html
https://consumerist.com/5283290/affidavits-on-how-wells-farg...
On that second link
> Paschal complained, yet Wells Fargo promoted him to area manager...
And here he is at another company...
https://www.jgwentworth.com/mortgages/about/branch-locations... https://www.jgwentworth.com/mortgages/about/branch-locations...
> Paschal complained, yet Wells Fargo promoted him to area manager...
And here he is at another company...
https://www.jgwentworth.com/mortgages/about/branch-locations... https://www.jgwentworth.com/mortgages/about/branch-locations...
Well, it's gotta stop sometime right? Past history doesn't mitigate her concern
True. One of our newest coworkers has been robbed by gangs on the way back from work twice now, and he's only been working there for three months. There's real reasons to be concerned about crime.
So should she not be concerned about this behavior? Does the fact that it stems from systemic racism and oppression make her any more safe from it?
> she's an immigrant from Russia.
Most Russians were literally owned by their landlords until 1861 [1]. After that, they suffered the most deaths of any country in both world wars, and many famines and purges under Stalin, and extreme repression in general in the Soviet Union.
Try not to frame her as completely ignorant of oppression.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia
Most Russians were literally owned by their landlords until 1861 [1]. After that, they suffered the most deaths of any country in both world wars, and many famines and purges under Stalin, and extreme repression in general in the Soviet Union.
Try not to frame her as completely ignorant of oppression.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia
[deleted]
Great points, and I didn't mean to, especially as a reflection of "all Russians" or something like that.
People constantly blame the culture. Look at Hillbilly Elegy, for example.
I recommend Dave Chappelle's new comedy special on Netflix as he touches on this in one of his bits.
Perhaps people are more sympathetic to people like them.
Exactly. The whole “that could be my child/mother/father/sister/brother”.
Today the same media is praising Cannabis and CBD, and says that marijuana is the miracle cure for depression, ...
Of course, you can't question that, especially on HN where every anti-cannabis opinion is downvoted.
Of course, you can't question that, especially on HN where every anti-cannabis opinion is downvoted.
This is a sweeping statement, can I ask for at least one sourced example? I've seen no source attempting to claim that marijuana is a miracle cure for depression, or that CBD is anything other than a fad propped up by a regulatory fluke. At most, I have seen articles regarding the potentially beneficial painkilling effects of marijuana for terminal cancer patients.
All of these articles from very reputable sources say that many view marijuana as a miracle cure. Of course, they are balanced and also question this narrative, but why do they say this view is widespread?
> How one molecule from the cannabis plant came to be seen as a therapeutic cure-all:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/14/magazine/cbd-...
> More Australians are using medicinal cannabis to treat a host of health problems as reports of its supposed healing powers flood the media:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/11/medicinal-ca...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/05/cbd-a-mariju...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/marijuan...
> How one molecule from the cannabis plant came to be seen as a therapeutic cure-all:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/14/magazine/cbd-...
> More Australians are using medicinal cannabis to treat a host of health problems as reports of its supposed healing powers flood the media:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/11/medicinal-ca...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/05/cbd-a-mariju...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/marijuan...
That's an extreme view, don't know where you are getting positive-only information feed. Like any mind-altering substance, it has its positives and drawbacks which are different from person to person.
For me personally, the benefits far outweigh drawbacks. In society where things like alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco are perfectly fine although they provably destroy endless stream of families, lives and bring one of the worst possible (and costly to society) ways to die, having cannabis illegal is unfair and illogical. US prisons full of small time weed offenders, an event that effectively ruins one's professional life.
Read a bit about history and why it was banned in US, which then pushed it to the rest of the world. Even to places like India where its used as religious plant for millennia.
I strongly welcome legalization and hope the movement comes to Europe, and rest of the world soon. Society is better off if it is legalized (and regulated for things like access to minors/psychiatric patients, strength, purity etc).
Now to advise it as panacea for mental issues is plain stupid. Go see an expert, that's why we have them. Same would go for stuff like LSD.
For me personally, the benefits far outweigh drawbacks. In society where things like alcohol and cigarettes/tobacco are perfectly fine although they provably destroy endless stream of families, lives and bring one of the worst possible (and costly to society) ways to die, having cannabis illegal is unfair and illogical. US prisons full of small time weed offenders, an event that effectively ruins one's professional life.
Read a bit about history and why it was banned in US, which then pushed it to the rest of the world. Even to places like India where its used as religious plant for millennia.
I strongly welcome legalization and hope the movement comes to Europe, and rest of the world soon. Society is better off if it is legalized (and regulated for things like access to minors/psychiatric patients, strength, purity etc).
Now to advise it as panacea for mental issues is plain stupid. Go see an expert, that's why we have them. Same would go for stuff like LSD.
Purely anecdotal, but cannabis helps w/ my depression and migraines. I've been smoking for 10 years now. I don't really see the media praising it, it is more socially acceptable nowadays though.
I think complicit is too strong of a word. They were reporting on the established (at the time) medical opinion. If the news industry hyped these drugs beyond what the medical establishment held to be accurate, then I would agree, but this article doesn't really indicate that.
Perhaps news agencies should include some measure of due-diligence and skepticism, rather than parroting.
Certainly, but skepticism doesn't mean reporting "nothing is true". When the vast majority of medical sources claimed opioids were safe, most media understandably wanted to avoid looking as conspiracy theorists.
You assume they didn't due any due diligence. Maybe they didn't, but maybe they did too. Either way, what would have sufficed beyond verifying that it was indeed the prevalent medical opinion of the time and that it wasn't contradicted in any significant way? It's not the role of news media to verify scientific research further than that-- it's the role of the research establishment which, yes, failed at that task until it was too late to avoid a crisis.
If there had been significant opposition to this at the time, I would agree that news media failed. But I just searched through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. Quite the opposite, they pointed towards them being underutilized and leaving patients in significant pain despite low risk of addiction.
As it turns out, doctors were wrong. But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. I can't fault the media for not knowing 25 years ago what the medical establishment has only recently come to accept.
If there had been significant opposition to this at the time, I would agree that news media failed. But I just searched through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. Quite the opposite, they pointed towards them being underutilized and leaving patients in significant pain despite low risk of addiction.
As it turns out, doctors were wrong. But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. I can't fault the media for not knowing 25 years ago what the medical establishment has only recently come to accept.
> I just search through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs.
And how many of those studies were funded by the institutions pushing the products being studied? This type of conflict-of-interest / research-funding is nothing new, cigarette companies arguably pioneered this practice decades before.
> But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light.
Sure, because of a non-ignorable problem. I'm advocating for skepticism, investigative journalism, and research, rather than parroting what industry says is true. I'm seeking reporting, not cheap public-relations pieces.
Instead of waiting for a problem, how about we ask questions of how things might fail before it does.
And how many of those studies were funded by the institutions pushing the products being studied? This type of conflict-of-interest / research-funding is nothing new, cigarette companies arguably pioneered this practice decades before.
> But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light.
Sure, because of a non-ignorable problem. I'm advocating for skepticism, investigative journalism, and research, rather than parroting what industry says is true. I'm seeking reporting, not cheap public-relations pieces.
Instead of waiting for a problem, how about we ask questions of how things might fail before it does.
In the context of due diligence, it doesn't matter how many articles were sponsored by institutions pushing the products if there were not also articles or other materials that news outlets would have been able to find that countered either the sponsored or independent opinions. They might have noted that sponsored research supported this opinion, but then also have had to admit that independent opinions also did so.
Skepticism is all well & good, but it's not the place of news media to be blindly skeptical. This isn't about what turned out to be correct or incorrect, it's about whether any amount of reasonable due diligence by news media would have changed their reporting. And the available information at the time doesn't indicate that it would.
Of course hind sight is 20/20, but you assume that media was simply parroting, that they didn't look into available research and come up empty. Maybe some didn't, maybe some did, but the fact remains that if they did, they would have come up empty. If the medical establishment, those actually tasked with the type of skepticism you advocate for, didn't do their job, that's on them. It's not on the media to be able to predict the future. You are simply blindly repeating "They should have done something" when nothing in the historical record would have supported it.
Skepticism is all well & good, but it's not the place of news media to be blindly skeptical. This isn't about what turned out to be correct or incorrect, it's about whether any amount of reasonable due diligence by news media would have changed their reporting. And the available information at the time doesn't indicate that it would.
Of course hind sight is 20/20, but you assume that media was simply parroting, that they didn't look into available research and come up empty. Maybe some didn't, maybe some did, but the fact remains that if they did, they would have come up empty. If the medical establishment, those actually tasked with the type of skepticism you advocate for, didn't do their job, that's on them. It's not on the media to be able to predict the future. You are simply blindly repeating "They should have done something" when nothing in the historical record would have supported it.
You're setting a standard that seems unreachable.
If the research is biased, you'd have to start funding your own clinical trials to find the real answer, which is extremely expensive (and perhaps unethical for certain addiction questions, given that you might addict people).
If the research is biased, you'd have to start funding your own clinical trials to find the real answer, which is extremely expensive (and perhaps unethical for certain addiction questions, given that you might addict people).
The role of news media is to distract
>They were reporting on the established (at the time) medical opinion.
To what end though? I'm not conspiratorially asking "what was their real angle?", but the much more simple "why did they think it was newsworthy for a non-doctor audience?"
I've seen the NYT run articles on a regulated industry I happen to work in. I'm no doctor, but I can see parallels because everything is slow moving and presumably based on expert opinion. Coverage of subtle points is surrounded by laughably bad analysis that drops a line of facts that lead the reader into conclusions they don't include in the print. Because if they printed it, the counterargument would be swift and damning. But without them explicitly saying it I'm "conspiratorial" if I say they're implying it. They then go on to make a wide-ranging hamfisted policy prescription that don't make sense for the subtle issue we started with and I'm 110% on board for fixing, but do make sense if you believe the unstated intermediary conclusion.
To what end though? I'm not conspiratorially asking "what was their real angle?", but the much more simple "why did they think it was newsworthy for a non-doctor audience?"
I've seen the NYT run articles on a regulated industry I happen to work in. I'm no doctor, but I can see parallels because everything is slow moving and presumably based on expert opinion. Coverage of subtle points is surrounded by laughably bad analysis that drops a line of facts that lead the reader into conclusions they don't include in the print. Because if they printed it, the counterargument would be swift and damning. But without them explicitly saying it I'm "conspiratorial" if I say they're implying it. They then go on to make a wide-ranging hamfisted policy prescription that don't make sense for the subtle issue we started with and I'm 110% on board for fixing, but do make sense if you believe the unstated intermediary conclusion.
I think the "why were they reporting is at all" question has more validity than "they didn't do their research". Because, again, the research available supported their position.
As for why it was reported at all, a health issue of interest to many thousands of people would seem to be newsworthy.
Finally, there were articles published by media outlets that showed potential problems with these prescriptions [0][1] And those were just what I found in a minute or two of searching. All available evidence shows that media outlets used prevailing scientific opinions of the time, and still managed to raise appropriate questions when issue began to arise.
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/19...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1996/06/18/dc-i...
As for why it was reported at all, a health issue of interest to many thousands of people would seem to be newsworthy.
Finally, there were articles published by media outlets that showed potential problems with these prescriptions [0][1] And those were just what I found in a minute or two of searching. All available evidence shows that media outlets used prevailing scientific opinions of the time, and still managed to raise appropriate questions when issue began to arise.
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/19...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1996/06/18/dc-i...
Seems like a good place to link Paul Graham’s essay on PR firms, and their relation with news media outlets:
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Though I can accept that news industry may have had a role to play in the influencing the thoughts and opinions of inexperienced medical professionals, I cannot accept that they are 'complicit' in the opioid crisis.
Its hard to accept that the medical practice in the Americas is comprised of mostly "young doctors and students." In 2018, ~69% [1] of physicians in America were over 46 years old. I am more inclined to believe that bad actors, lobbying and general incompetence is to be blamed.
This topic reminded me of "The $100 billion per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax"[2] piece which highlighted drug companies who spent millions on marketing, borrowing a page from Big-Tobacco, doctors who over-prescribed and frustrated patients who too matters into their own hands.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/415961/share-of-age-amon... [2] https://qz.com/1010259/the-100-billion-per-year-back-pain-in...
Its hard to accept that the medical practice in the Americas is comprised of mostly "young doctors and students." In 2018, ~69% [1] of physicians in America were over 46 years old. I am more inclined to believe that bad actors, lobbying and general incompetence is to be blamed.
This topic reminded me of "The $100 billion per year back pain industry is mostly a hoax"[2] piece which highlighted drug companies who spent millions on marketing, borrowing a page from Big-Tobacco, doctors who over-prescribed and frustrated patients who too matters into their own hands.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/415961/share-of-age-amon... [2] https://qz.com/1010259/the-100-billion-per-year-back-pain-in...
I think it's interesting that out of 120+ comments on opioids, nobody mentions the elephant in the room:
Some studies find NSAIDs are as effective in the treatment of pain [1]. You can find several other studies with a quick search, though most of the ones I've found were short-term.
An additional issue is that opioids are not a treatment for the causes of pain. Pain is generally a symptom, not the underlying pathology. Physical therapy and other reliefs (nonsurgical) can treat the causes of pain and eliminate the need for any pain treatments.
And as for an anecdote - my stepfather went from large doses of opioids after back surgery and severe pain (for an issue they wouldn't recommend surgery for anymore, but would instead recommend physical therapy) for years, to a reasonable level of prescribed marijuana consumption.
Just some things to think about, since most of voices in the room seem to be pro-opioid.
1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26739...
Some studies find NSAIDs are as effective in the treatment of pain [1]. You can find several other studies with a quick search, though most of the ones I've found were short-term.
An additional issue is that opioids are not a treatment for the causes of pain. Pain is generally a symptom, not the underlying pathology. Physical therapy and other reliefs (nonsurgical) can treat the causes of pain and eliminate the need for any pain treatments.
And as for an anecdote - my stepfather went from large doses of opioids after back surgery and severe pain (for an issue they wouldn't recommend surgery for anymore, but would instead recommend physical therapy) for years, to a reasonable level of prescribed marijuana consumption.
Just some things to think about, since most of voices in the room seem to be pro-opioid.
1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26739...
Let's be honest, what aren't they complicit in?
Broad condemnation of a broad group of a people is a dangerous path.
BucketSort(1)
Yes, but you have to admit, the news doesn't really serve its intended purpose of speaking out against power. It seems more like a conduit that's pretending it's not.
News' intended purpose isn't just about speaking out against power. It's about providing a means for people to obtain information about current events -- political, medical, whatever. It's supposed to help augment your education.
You know, the same education which is thoroughly gutted in America.
You know, the same education which is thoroughly gutted in America.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What counts as complicit?
Reporting accurately on what the medical community thought the answer was?
Reporting accurately on what the medical community thought the answer was?
I wish I could use the fallacious "No TRUE doctor would use The Times to inform medical decisions." Because it seems like it should be universally true. On the one hand I am glad this one is telling their truth, now I feel more informed. On the other, I am appalled and terrified that this may apply to a significant percentage of "true" doctors.
Looking at my own experience with doctors who were practicing throughout this scandal, I always try to think: what will our generation's scandal in the medical community be?
The loss of the doctor-patient relationship could be one.
Our trust and financial relationship with the pharmaceutical/insurance industries, or maybe our salaries in general?
The loss of the doctor-patient relationship could be one.
Our trust and financial relationship with the pharmaceutical/insurance industries, or maybe our salaries in general?
>A 2001 US News and World Report story described OxyContin as a “safe, effective medication with few side effects,” and put the chances of addiction at one percent
>we now know that between eight and 12 percent of patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain develop an addiction
I wonder how the state of the economy influences rate of addiction?
>we now know that between eight and 12 percent of patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain develop an addiction
I wonder how the state of the economy influences rate of addiction?
I would imagine that the rate directly correlates with other additions such as alcohol. While addition happens to all classes of society, those in impoverished areas tend to have a greater concentration of addition (at least reported).
If there are any of chronic pain sufferers in here that have not yet explored the connection between emotions and pain, if you see this then now may be your lucky day.
There is no correlation between structural changes in your body and the level of pain you have to endure, and you can be fully cured from your chronic pain within months.
It is hard work, and you will have to deeply examine your life, but if you are ready I encourage you to check out Dr. Sarno and fall down the Healing Back Pain rabbit hole. Nicole Sachs has some excellent youtube videos that I recommend. As well there is Steve Ozanich's incredible book.
I suffered for a decade with debilitating back pain, arm pain, neck pain, headaches, arthritis, knee pain, jaw pain, tendinitis, all of it, every day, all day, my entire life was my pain for a decade. And like thousands and thousands of others before me, once I discovered the real source of my pain I could actually work on healing it, and within months I was fully cured, and now have a toolset to interface with stress and pain in a healthy way that will last me forever.
You don't have to suffer, but you will need to work at this.
There is no correlation between structural changes in your body and the level of pain you have to endure, and you can be fully cured from your chronic pain within months.
It is hard work, and you will have to deeply examine your life, but if you are ready I encourage you to check out Dr. Sarno and fall down the Healing Back Pain rabbit hole. Nicole Sachs has some excellent youtube videos that I recommend. As well there is Steve Ozanich's incredible book.
I suffered for a decade with debilitating back pain, arm pain, neck pain, headaches, arthritis, knee pain, jaw pain, tendinitis, all of it, every day, all day, my entire life was my pain for a decade. And like thousands and thousands of others before me, once I discovered the real source of my pain I could actually work on healing it, and within months I was fully cured, and now have a toolset to interface with stress and pain in a healthy way that will last me forever.
You don't have to suffer, but you will need to work at this.
A small addendum. This comment was downvoted '-1' pretty quickly. Like Eric Weinstein and the IDW suggest, we need the voices that were cast aside and disregarded if we are going to move forward in a new paradigm. I'm not lying or selling anything here. I am healed. So can you be. Your choice.
[deleted]
Lately Google and Bing have been pushing searches for medical terms away from Wikipedia and towards WebMD, but that article says WebMD is funded by drug companies, and is itself suspect.
Wikipedia has remarkably fair treatment of controversial topics such as rBST.
Wikipedia has remarkably fair treatment of controversial topics such as rBST.
Complicit? Reporters aren't medical experts. They reported what the medical pros of the 90s said. And, the doctors at the time all nodded their heads and said it was great stuff.
Yup, and the literature misquoted said the same 16 years ago, appears some of the media was into it then:
Drug companies amplified that theme in materials sent to doctors and pharmacists. For example, Janssen Pharmaceutica, the producer of Duragesic, called the risk of addiction ''relatively rare'' in a package insert with the drug. Endo termed the risk ''very rare'' in presentations to hospital pharmacists. Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the powerful narcotic OxyContin, distributed a brochure to chronic pain patients called ''From One Pain Patient to Another,'' contending that it and similar drugs posed minimal risks.
''Some patients may be afraid of taking opioids because they are perceived as too strong or addictive,'' the brochure stated. ''But that is far from actual fact. Less than 1 percent of patients taking opioids actually become addicted.''
The trouble, however, was that studies that looked at the experience of pain patients who used long-acting narcotics for extended periods of time did not exist. So narcotics advocates like Dr. Portenoy and drug companies like Purdue Pharma had looked elsewhere, at surveys of patients whose use of narcotics was limited. And those reports were not always put into proper context.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/science/the-delicate-bala...
Drug companies amplified that theme in materials sent to doctors and pharmacists. For example, Janssen Pharmaceutica, the producer of Duragesic, called the risk of addiction ''relatively rare'' in a package insert with the drug. Endo termed the risk ''very rare'' in presentations to hospital pharmacists. Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the powerful narcotic OxyContin, distributed a brochure to chronic pain patients called ''From One Pain Patient to Another,'' contending that it and similar drugs posed minimal risks.
''Some patients may be afraid of taking opioids because they are perceived as too strong or addictive,'' the brochure stated. ''But that is far from actual fact. Less than 1 percent of patients taking opioids actually become addicted.''
The trouble, however, was that studies that looked at the experience of pain patients who used long-acting narcotics for extended periods of time did not exist. So narcotics advocates like Dr. Portenoy and drug companies like Purdue Pharma had looked elsewhere, at surveys of patients whose use of narcotics was limited. And those reports were not always put into proper context.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/science/the-delicate-bala...
[deleted]
Related good read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudo...
The war on drugs doesn’t work. the government should not have the authority to interfere with what people put inside their body.
Stop blaming drug addiction on everybody but the drug addicts.
Stop blaming drug addiction on everybody but the drug addicts.
Those with Chronic Pain are being left to suffer because of abusers. In April of 2019 the CDC stated that their "guidelines" are being miss applied. Sadly the damage is already done.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0424-advises-misapp...
"CDC Advises Against Misapplication of the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain Some policies, practices attributed to the Guideline are inconsistent with its recommendations.
In a new commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), authors of the 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (Guideline) advise against misapplication of the Guideline that can risk patient health and safety.
CDC commends efforts by healthcare providers and systems, quality improvement organizations, payers, and states to improve opioid prescribing and reduce opioid misuse and overdose. However, some policies and practices that cite the Guideline are inconsistent with, and go beyond, its recommendations. In the NEJM commentary, the authors outline examples of misapplication of the Guideline, and highlight advice from the Guideline that is sometimes overlooked but is critical for safe and effective implementation of the recommendations.
CDC is raising awareness about the following issues that could put patients at risk:..."