After bad marinara sauce, rubbery calamari, and anti-vaccine quackery, my number one irritant of the moment is the public conception of pharmaceutical "side effects". This B&M[2] was prompted by the following post at MrXStitch, which, despite the hilarity of the NSFW cross-stich Saturdays (NSFW, duh), got itself naturally selected out of my RSS feed. This was not intended to be cute, but to show the "scariness" of prescription medications (the title is "Say No to (Scary) Drugs").
While the side effects and interactions of any pharmaceutical should be taken very, very seriously, they need to be put into the proper context. AltMed woonackery, especially in the form of "natural" remedies and homeopathy[4], has changed the nature of the debate making "no side effects" the goal. Why does the woonackery not list side effects on their boxes and legitimately claim "no known side effects"? Because they are not required to test their products for safety or efficacy.
While I personally know no people named "Seven", that does not mean that I can conclude that there is no one named "Seven", never has been a person named "Seven", nor will there ever be a person named "Seven". I'd have to do some serious research before I could make any such statements.
Where do those long side effect lists come from? They generally come
from placebo controlled, random, double-blinded clinical studies, in
which the side effects exhibited by patients are painstakingly
documented and reported[6]. Not only is this required for FDA approval,
but is essential for allowing doctors to make accurate cost-benefit
assesments of treatments.
Think about it. What are the odds, really, that you can have a treatment that not only has a strong effect on a biological process and whose effects are completely confined, in a positive direction, to that process. Biology is compicated folks.
According to the artist Mandyhello:
A few months ago, I had what I thought was a little headcold and my
doctor prescribed me 3 different medications (I didn't fill any of
them, and got better in about a week). Before that, I went in for my
yearly exam, and she tried to prescribe 3 (different) medications
(including something for allergies, and I've never had allergies). . .Lately, I've been trying to let my body alone, to not add any chemicals I don't have to..[sic]
Say it with me: cost-benefit analysis. I have no way of knowing whether Mandyhello's doctor is a good doctor. But, the knee-jerk philosophical opposition to prescription medication makes no sense. Happily, Mandyhello[8] got better in a relative short period of time. Of course, she could have had recovered more quickly or with less intense symptoms had she followed her doctor's advice. You know, Mandyhello, they don't prescribe them for fun. Well most of them don't. No one is perfect.
NOTES:
1: Which, oddly enough, means that we cannot prove that statement. Or this one. Ad infinitum.
2: Which is fine, if you do, because there are a number of pros to that approach, but you are not saving the environment. Water usage is a bigger problem than landfill fillage.
3: Which stands for "bitch and moan" [7], which I put down here, because I like to believe Hank hates it when I cuss. That whole not-being-Puritanical thing is just a facade, and you know it.
4: Which, when they aren't pretending to be homeopathic, actually does have no side effects other than being thirst quenching[5].
5: But no more thirst quenching than placebo.
6: When done correctly.
7: Not to confused with a "BM". All you parents of babies in day care know what I mean.
8: Doesn't that make you want to go "Mandy, HELLO!"
