Posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2012, at 13:01:08
In reply to Lou's request- » bleauberry, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2012, at 12:55:49
> > Nothing is safe long term, not even life itself. By saying "safe", if you are talking life/death safeness, I don't see any long term significant risk there. There is always some with any med, but probably low in this case. If you are talking other forms of safe, such as movement disorders or nervous system disorders, then yeah, antipsychotics are well known for not being safe long term.
> >
> > I went 8 years on zyprexa and it seemed safe enough, except for the permanent finger tremors it caused.
> >
> > Sorry you don't trust your doctor, but I certainly hear you on that. My eyes have seen that they can be really good on a few isolated topics, but in general are rather disappointing and charge way too much money considering the lack of proof of expertness or results. They get paid a lot for "good intentions", regardless whether performance is respectable or not.
> >
> > I see disappointments, or what I see as disappointments in many fields of medicine. For example, bladder and prostate are good targets for lyme related infections. How come my urinologist, as good as he is, knows absolutely nothing about lyme disease? He should, because it impacts the urinary system directly. Instead, they call symptoms "idiopathic", which means no explanation, when in fact there are explanations.
> >
> > Or how about the ER doctor who gives a patient, me, 250mg Tetracycline as a prophylactic dose against possible lyme after he removed a tick from my leg. In the past I had taken 500mg 3 times a day for months and it barely scratched the surface in lyme, but he thinks a single dose of 250mg is going to do anythinig? And then he explained to me that is based on a study....a single study. Boggles the mind.
> >
> > I could go on and on. Sorry, no disrespect intended to medical pros, just venting frustration and disappointment. I guess if those guys were paid $15 an hour instead of $200 an hour, then maybe it would all be more acceptable to me. I just can't see being paid that much when actual performance is kind of spotty and random.
>
> bleau,
> You wrote,[...I don't see any long-term significant risk (life/death safeness)...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean here to the innitiator of this thread. If you could post answers here, then I could respond to you.
> True or false.
> A. You will post what you understnd to be (a significant risk)?
> B. You will not post what your understanding of a significant risk is?
> C.Since you posted that you do not see any long term significant risk (life/death safeness), then your advise here is based upon what you consider to be a significant risk without defining what you are wanting to mean by significant?
> D. If you elect now to post here what your understanding of significant is, could that change your advise to the innitiator of this thread?
> E. If the innitiator of this thread takes your advise as posted before you post a modification, if you post such, do you think that there is the potential that you could you be held liable for the death of the innitiator of this thread if their death was caused by taking Seroquel and they followed what you posted as that you do not see and long-term significant risk?
> F. redacted by respondent
> Lou
> http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/seroquel/suicide+ideationcorrection;
http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/seroquel/suicidal+ideation
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1023483
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120818/msgs/1023602.html