Remember that seemingly wonderful homeopathic "treatment for the common cold" called Zicam? It appears the FDA is now shutting it down for causing a number of users to lose their sense of smell.
Zicam - Can you smell it now?
- Thread starter LuxLuthor
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
- Status
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Today Zicam, tomorrow another drug. This is why I never take anything stronger than aspirin or vitamins. Sooner or later it seems all these newfangled wonder drugs have side effects worse than whatever it is they're made to cure.
BTW, this is old news to me about Zicam. I read about this FDA recall in the last issue of Worst Pills, Best Pills.
BTW, this is old news to me about Zicam. I read about this FDA recall in the last issue of Worst Pills, Best Pills.
karlthev
Flashlight Enthusiast
Agreed. I have many good friends who are physicians but (very) rarely see them in their professional capacity for fear of the recommendation to take some medication. I have been fortunate in not having had to take medications other than the occasional asprin so...."if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy is my guide and one followed by my parents who lived to ages 88 and 89. I sure don't feel perfect at near 58 but good enough with that many "miles on my personal odometer"....
Karl
Karl
Last edited:
I am sure you know about the interesting side-effects of aspirine, don't you?
I am also sure that you are aware of how side effects are studied and drugs are allowed or not nowadays and back then. And you sure do know how your favourite old and not-strong drugs have been tested back then and that you know just as much about them as you do about the new stuff?
Good luck!
bernie
SilentK
Enlightened
I absolutly refuse to take any thing more than you standard pain killer. the last time i took something more than that was a few years back, when i got a pretty bad case of pneumonia. even then, the first few weeks i said i would wait to see how it does. I do not trust doctors whatsoever. but that time i knew something was screwed up and i needed meds.
Anyway, this does not surprise me. You hear it on the news every couple of months about a miracle drugs screwing people up.
Anyway, this does not surprise me. You hear it on the news every couple of months about a miracle drugs screwing people up.
greg_in_canada
Flashlight Enthusiast
That because every drug has side effects. It up to you (and your doctor) to decide if the problem you are trying to solve is worth the (common) side effects or the risk of the serious side effects.
Greg
jch79
**Do Not Feed The Vegan**,
I am sure you know about the interesting side-effects of aspirine, don't you?
I am also sure that you are aware of how side effects are studied and drugs are allowed or not nowadays and back then. And you sure do know how your favourite old and not-strong drugs have been tested back then and that you know just as much about them as you do about the new stuff?
Good luck!
bernie
And what are you, some sort of doctor?
Oh... :thinking: wait...
:wave: john
Jaywalk3r
Banned
It appears that only the swabs and nasal gel are affected. I'm glad to read that, since Zicam is the only medication I've ever found that actually gets rid of my colds.
SilentK
Enlightened
Yeah i know. as long as my life is not threatened or other wise with similar circumstances, then i will just ride it out. not worth it if you ask me. but not everyone is willing to suffer.
dano
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's homeopathic, so the supposed results of any "cure" are probably placebo-effect based.
Is it the "zinc" in the stuff that's causing this?
Is it the "zinc" in the stuff that's causing this?
Probably, given this other recent issue with Fixodent/Polident. Consider the link source, sample size and first two paragraphs however.
Somehow these kinds of reports rarely surprise me. I'm not much of a medicine user other than the occasional advil or cough syrup when I'm sick. It's my belief that many of these common medicines are rarely tested thoroughly and hence many are unknowingly dangerous in one way or another. Loosing your sense of smell is pretty dang severe! Yikes.
Jaywalk3r
Banned
It has been shown to be effective in clinical studies. It isn't just a placebo effect. It was actually pretty big news 12-13 years ago when Cold-Eez and Zicam were released. Since then, I can count all of the severe colds I've had on one hand, with fingers left over. Prior to that, I would get 2-4 severe colds each year.
FDA is pretty strict about not allowing companies to make claims about the medicinal value of their products without sufficient evidence.
Last edited:
TedTheLed
Flashlight Enthusiast
don't be so sure about aspirin;
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/03/should-you-take-lowdose-aspirin.html
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/03/should-you-take-lowdose-aspirin.html
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Aspirin is OK if you only take it when you're sick. Maybe it's just me, but I find the recent trend of taking pills all the time a bit alarming. To me, a pill is something you take when you're sick to make you better. Once you're better, you stop taking it, period. Aspirin to prevent heart attack? Strikes me as silly when lifestyle measures can do the same thing better, and without the possibility of side effects. And that's really the heart of the problem nowadays-the willingness of so much of the population to take a pill on a continual basis to compensate for an unhealthy lifestyle. Granted, a certain number of chronically ill through no fault of their own will need to always take drugs. But if someone takes Lipitor, for example, while continuing the high-fat diet and zero exercise lifestyle which is causing their high cholesterol in the first place, well to me that makes zero sense.
I've yet to see one of these miracle drugs not have serious side effects down the road. And I think the problem stems not from the drug being overly harmful if taken occasionally. Rather, it's the trend of taking these pills every single day which overwhelms the body's ability to overcome any side effects. Not to mention long-term liver or kidney damage from the body continually filter out these foreign chemicals.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/7007/aspirin_can_prevent_1st_heart_attack/
From the article:
My comments:
It's certainly better to take aspirin than Lipitor, but it's even better if you take neither. Granted, a small percentage of unfortunate individuals require drugs due to genetic factors beyond their control. I even said as much. For the rest, pills should be a last resort, not a first one. This whole incident with Zicam is a good example. It may work (or not). I don't care to debate its effectiveness. Rather, it's the fact that so many are willing to rush and try an unproven new drug for a cold instead of just letting the body's natural defenses fight it. Same thing nowadays for just about every other ailment. And then when unforeseen side effects surface years later, you're left with a bigger problem than you were trying to cure. My mom is still suffering side effects from one of those osteoporosis medicines (I think it was Fosamax) which she took exactly twice 3 years ago. I'm not ignorant on the subject. I've seen too many people close to me incapacitated by pills. I'm 100% sure Lipitor was a major factor in my father's declining health and fatal second heart attack.
I keep waiting and hoping one of these drug recalls is finally the tipping point to make people wake up and realize there's no easy answer. If you want good health, you have to work at same as anything else in life.
You are generalizing where you shouldn't, and you are taking things out of context. In medicine, quoting an article is worth nada if you don't have the knowledge around to put the statement of the article in the proper context.
I don't wanna argue NNTs (number needed to treat) and such, but basically taking ot not taking a medicament is the simple plotting of benefits vs possible side effects.
But ... I'll be more specific:
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. And sometimes you're simply better because of the pill. A lot of unneccessary illness and health care costs are caused by uninformed or ill-informed patients stopping their medication without consulting a doctor.
The same thing or better ... but how? And for all causes of heart attacks? And for everyone? And in every stage of the illness? This statement of yours is just a blanket statement that holds no value because it is ill informed and shows no understanding of the underlying problem.
No possible side effects of lifestyle measures? You're kidding, right?
bernie
I don't wanna argue NNTs (number needed to treat) and such, but basically taking ot not taking a medicament is the simple plotting of benefits vs possible side effects.
But ... I'll be more specific:
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. And sometimes you're simply better because of the pill. A lot of unneccessary illness and health care costs are caused by uninformed or ill-informed patients stopping their medication without consulting a doctor.
The same thing or better ... but how? And for all causes of heart attacks? And for everyone? And in every stage of the illness? This statement of yours is just a blanket statement that holds no value because it is ill informed and shows no understanding of the underlying problem.
No possible side effects of lifestyle measures? You're kidding, right?
bernie
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Bernie,
I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here on account of cultural differences. You live in Germany. Unless you lived in the US for a while you wouldn't realize how bad the situation is in the US regarding deaths from legal drugs which are wrongly prescribed and/or just plain abused. Germany, the rest of the EU, and most of the rest of the world has rightly banned direct to patient advertising of prescription drugs. The US hasn't. Guess what happens? Someone who may or may not have a condition appropriate for a given drug sees a drug commercial, usually containing the tagline "Ask you doctor about drug x". So they do exactly that, waste a physician's valuable time asking about a drug which may or may not be appropriate for them. And if the physician says no, I won't prescribe it, it's not indicated in your case, they'll argue. Hey doc, I saw the commercial with blue skies and pretty clouds and flowers and green grass. I just know this drug is exactly what I need. If the physician doesn't relent and prescribe it, they find another who will. Or they buy it illegally online. Point is in the US you essentially have patients self-prescribing drugs because of drug commercials. This is a problem you don't have to deal with over there even though big pharma is lobbying to have the EU also allow direct to patient advertising.
The problem here is bad, really bad. Something like 100,000 people here annually die from complications from prescription drugs. And that figure may be grossly underestimated. The FDA's approval process is grossly inadequate as far as protecting the general public due to the sheer numbers of new drugs awaiting approval overwhelming the agency's limited resources.
To further add to my case, my mom's doctor prescribed a drug for hypertension without even asking about or suggesting lifestyle changes first. This to me borders on medical malpractice. If her BP was life-threateningly high then I might understand the need to put her on hypertension drugs immediately before trying other ways to control the situation, but that wasn't the case. Her BP was about 150/100 on a bad day, maybe 135/80 on a good one. In other words, a little high. What would you have done with a patient like that? It frightens me that drugs are now a treatment of first resort with little consideration given to evaluating a patient's lifestyle choices first. Oh, and my mom of course suffering some serious side effects after a few days on the BP medication and stopped taking it. It did little to lower her BP anyway-readings were the same with or without it.
My overiding point here isn't about the efficacy or need for drugs where their use is clearly indicated, and where the benefits outweigh the side effects. Rather, it's that there's something clearly wrong with the fact that large numbers of people my age or younger are on some type of medication on a continual basis. Statistically, there just aren't that many people with some overriding genetic condition for whom drugs are the only option. A large majority of these drug users can get off their drugs via simple lifestyle changes. But thanks to the influence of big pharma we refuse to give them any incentive to do so. My late father wouldn't have needed a diuretic or Lipitor or hypertension medication if he lost weight, ate better, and exercised. He didn't have any of the conditions these drugs treated by genetic predisposition. They were all caused by horrible lifestyle choices. So the drugs prevented his lifstyle from killing him, for a while anyway. And then when their side effects kicked in, no lifestyle change would have done a bit of good. The Lipitor caused severe muscle weakness. All of the drugs combined likely had him headed in the direction of kidney or liver failure. His mother actually lived longer than he did without drugs, and living a similarly poor lifestyle. I fail to see how anyone benefitted here other than pharmacy companies. And yes, I'm seriously considering a class-action lawsuit against the makers of Lipitor. And I'll start writing letters to my representatives to once again ban direct-to-patient advertising of prescription drugs, along with forbidding drug salespeople from contacting medical professionals.
Live in the US for a few weeks. Watch the incessant stream of drug commercials on prime-time TV for things like hypertension, cholesterol, erectile dysfunction, social anxiety disorder (is that even a real disease?), ADHD, etc. And then tell me with a straight face we don't have major problem. It's so bad I wouldn't even see a doctor if I could afford to do so (I can't) for fear of being prescribed drugs because some of my readings might not match those of a 20-year old Olympic athlete. Be glad you're practicing in the EU. At least you can be a real doctor there without having your patients telling you what they need.
I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here on account of cultural differences. You live in Germany. Unless you lived in the US for a while you wouldn't realize how bad the situation is in the US regarding deaths from legal drugs which are wrongly prescribed and/or just plain abused. Germany, the rest of the EU, and most of the rest of the world has rightly banned direct to patient advertising of prescription drugs. The US hasn't. Guess what happens? Someone who may or may not have a condition appropriate for a given drug sees a drug commercial, usually containing the tagline "Ask you doctor about drug x". So they do exactly that, waste a physician's valuable time asking about a drug which may or may not be appropriate for them. And if the physician says no, I won't prescribe it, it's not indicated in your case, they'll argue. Hey doc, I saw the commercial with blue skies and pretty clouds and flowers and green grass. I just know this drug is exactly what I need. If the physician doesn't relent and prescribe it, they find another who will. Or they buy it illegally online. Point is in the US you essentially have patients self-prescribing drugs because of drug commercials. This is a problem you don't have to deal with over there even though big pharma is lobbying to have the EU also allow direct to patient advertising.
The problem here is bad, really bad. Something like 100,000 people here annually die from complications from prescription drugs. And that figure may be grossly underestimated. The FDA's approval process is grossly inadequate as far as protecting the general public due to the sheer numbers of new drugs awaiting approval overwhelming the agency's limited resources.
To further add to my case, my mom's doctor prescribed a drug for hypertension without even asking about or suggesting lifestyle changes first. This to me borders on medical malpractice. If her BP was life-threateningly high then I might understand the need to put her on hypertension drugs immediately before trying other ways to control the situation, but that wasn't the case. Her BP was about 150/100 on a bad day, maybe 135/80 on a good one. In other words, a little high. What would you have done with a patient like that? It frightens me that drugs are now a treatment of first resort with little consideration given to evaluating a patient's lifestyle choices first. Oh, and my mom of course suffering some serious side effects after a few days on the BP medication and stopped taking it. It did little to lower her BP anyway-readings were the same with or without it.
From good lifestyle choices, no, unless you consider good health a side effect. From bad ones like smoking or overeating or promiscuous sex, obviously yes.
My overiding point here isn't about the efficacy or need for drugs where their use is clearly indicated, and where the benefits outweigh the side effects. Rather, it's that there's something clearly wrong with the fact that large numbers of people my age or younger are on some type of medication on a continual basis. Statistically, there just aren't that many people with some overriding genetic condition for whom drugs are the only option. A large majority of these drug users can get off their drugs via simple lifestyle changes. But thanks to the influence of big pharma we refuse to give them any incentive to do so. My late father wouldn't have needed a diuretic or Lipitor or hypertension medication if he lost weight, ate better, and exercised. He didn't have any of the conditions these drugs treated by genetic predisposition. They were all caused by horrible lifestyle choices. So the drugs prevented his lifstyle from killing him, for a while anyway. And then when their side effects kicked in, no lifestyle change would have done a bit of good. The Lipitor caused severe muscle weakness. All of the drugs combined likely had him headed in the direction of kidney or liver failure. His mother actually lived longer than he did without drugs, and living a similarly poor lifestyle. I fail to see how anyone benefitted here other than pharmacy companies. And yes, I'm seriously considering a class-action lawsuit against the makers of Lipitor. And I'll start writing letters to my representatives to once again ban direct-to-patient advertising of prescription drugs, along with forbidding drug salespeople from contacting medical professionals.
Live in the US for a few weeks. Watch the incessant stream of drug commercials on prime-time TV for things like hypertension, cholesterol, erectile dysfunction, social anxiety disorder (is that even a real disease?), ADHD, etc. And then tell me with a straight face we don't have major problem. It's so bad I wouldn't even see a doctor if I could afford to do so (I can't) for fear of being prescribed drugs because some of my readings might not match those of a 20-year old Olympic athlete. Be glad you're practicing in the EU. At least you can be a real doctor there without having your patients telling you what they need.
jtr1962 and Kiessling, until it's been openly established that you're speaking in regards to "preventative" medicine, I don't think many of your key points hold true. For example, if you have a once a year migraine, you take a pill once at the time of occurrence and then you don't take take it anymore. The original aspirin statement in this thread was referring to occasional use, although I understand the subject matter has migrated slightly from aspirin.
It's true that many who stop taking medicine run into complications but I think the general point that jtr1962 was trying to convey is that medicine is often a temporary boat hull plug when there might actually be a better fix for the problem. A man who's consistently 100 lbs overweight is going to be at higher risk on medicine than a properly per-portioned man not taking any medicine. I suspect that's one example of what jtr meant by "hard work"
Kiessling make the valid point that some are still better off on medication. The article that your link to, jtr, is simply weighing the benefits vs. the risk. It doesn't say that aspirin is all together bad, which reinforces Kiessling's statement and not so much yours.
Anyhow, just though I'd inject my perspective as a bystander.
EDIT: I hadn't yet seen jtr's most recent post but the commercial drug situation is nuts over here in the US. You can't watch 30 minutes of TV without a continuous bombardment of drug advertising. It's so prolific that I think I'm numb to it now.
It's true that many who stop taking medicine run into complications but I think the general point that jtr1962 was trying to convey is that medicine is often a temporary boat hull plug when there might actually be a better fix for the problem. A man who's consistently 100 lbs overweight is going to be at higher risk on medicine than a properly per-portioned man not taking any medicine. I suspect that's one example of what jtr meant by "hard work"
Kiessling make the valid point that some are still better off on medication. The article that your link to, jtr, is simply weighing the benefits vs. the risk. It doesn't say that aspirin is all together bad, which reinforces Kiessling's statement and not so much yours.
Anyhow, just though I'd inject my perspective as a bystander.
EDIT: I hadn't yet seen jtr's most recent post but the commercial drug situation is nuts over here in the US. You can't watch 30 minutes of TV without a continuous bombardment of drug advertising. It's so prolific that I think I'm numb to it now.
Last edited:
- Status
