Posted by stargazer on November 20, 2006, at 23:06:07
In reply to Re: Do the drug companies know their meds suck??, posted by linkadge on November 20, 2006, at 17:31:25
How do they know it works well, what kind of followup do they do for people taking the meds?
No one has interviewed me or sent me a survey in 25 years of taking these meds. And the doctors are not always the best person to ask about patient results, the patient is. I worked with a doctor who said most of his patients were getting good results with ECT. His notes would always say "improving, no side effects..." and I knew that this was not true. The patient would say they were not getting any benefit and this comment would be discounted by the pdoc. This pdoc had a fincancial incentive in continuing the treatment, so his comment should be disregarded.
How are long term studies on these drugs done? Do you know? I am curious how they determine whether a drug is doing what it was developed to do.
I don't think all drug suck, but I am not sure how many are really good. My experience has been mixed and from what I see here, there are alot of unhappy people struggling to find better medications, at least I am. But I think the people here are very proactive in their treatment and many have diagnosis/symptoms that are highly resistent to meds. At least that's my assessment of things.
If I thought drugs were not part of the answer I would have given up long ago. I don't need meds to live, but I have experienced good control of my symptoms sporatically with medication. I just want there to be a better way to determine what meds should be tried first, then second for specific symptoms and for there to be a more consistent approach to drug trials. It doesn't have to be this haphazard, does it? Isn't this a scientific process?
SG
poster:stargazer
thread:703230
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061117/msgs/705708.html