Scandal Depakine and pregnancy! One more!

[chatelot16]

there is no need to convince me of the importance of good food and alternative medicine less boring than heavy chemistry ... I took advantage of it: very good lifestyle when I was small, and always looked after by homeopathy ... I think it's a little thanks to this that I have good health

but the question of depakine is not there!

it is a drug that has a use!

it is a drug which has a known contraindication from the start!

it is a drug available only on prescription: so if it is given to a pregnant woman there is a professional fault!

the story was worse with the mediator, because not only was it the professional fault of prescribing it in bad cases, but in addition it was a not very useful drug whose misuse as an appetite suppressant was the main source of income from the manufacturer!

[Janic]

remondo hello

Janic wrote:
No medicine used, just observation and a little common sense, unfortunately off the beaten track.

and a huge stroke of luck !! It would not have happened in Lourdes by chance? Because there, they have roughly the same arguments ...

Oh, man of little faith!
More seriously when we talk about the "miracles" of medicine; would it pass first through Lourdes?
Ah, I forgot it is thanks to chemical poisons that the health of populations is improving, as the health of populations has improved with agrochemistry for example !? Whistleblowers like the Burgundians, indisputable scientists, have resuscitated soils that have become sterile (without going through Lourdes) with observation and common sense and off the beaten track and yet denigrated, fought by INRA in their time, that too dependent on the lobbies of agrochemicals.

However, you shouldn't be too candid.

You should not be naive, however, by placing your trust in a system that is cracking more and more.

Obamot hello
I agree with your analysis, with a nuance, or rather a precision: But I'm not against putting out fires .... There are various ways to extinguish fires such as water which reduces heat, but feeds the fire by breaking down into hydrogen and oxygen under the action of fire, but it is inexpensive and readily available. Or cover it with very expensive dry ice but not available in large quantities.
School medicine cleans the "evil" under a huge amount of water with mixed success, but it is the most used method, the largest part of the population must therefore do with failing to know others means (although unconventional medicines are gaining more and more users) as your examples show.

Chatelot hello

but the question of depakine is not there!
it is a drug that has a use!
it is a drug which has a known contraindication from the start!

Listen to the testimonies which pass on the waves. Any chemical medication has potential risks, which official medicine recognizes when talking about the benefits / risks of each medication on the market. The key is to quantify the risk between 0 and 100%. Evidence suggests that the real gravity has not been sufficiently explained, nor the (mostly) recognized effects.

it is a drug available only on prescription: so if it is given to a pregnant woman there is professional misconduct!

Exactly not! It can be given to a pregnant woman (according to some doctors) but under close supervision.

the story was worse with the mediator, because not only was it the professional fault of prescribing it in bad cases, but in addition it was a not very useful drug whose misuse as an appetite suppressant was the main source of income from the manufacturer!

As if all the drugs on the market were not sources of income for their manufacturers!
But it's not that simple! Thus the anti conception pill was scientifically known to increase the cardiovascular risks, but the women concerned (especially the very young) are not or not very sensitive to these arguments and say that their future is not determined by such product at risk (risk which increases notably in smokers)

[Janic]

remondo hello

and a huge stroke of luck !! It would not have happened in Lourdes by chance? Because there, they have roughly the same arguments ...

with a little delay, an important clarification concerning the example given.
So this male colleague had relatives open to alternative medicines but that he had not tried so far; but his wife was firmly opposed to them, having total confidence in school medicine and therefore in his doctor. Nothing special so far, it's pretty classic! But gently, and it spanned a year, the child gradually got better, starting to stammer words, moving his legs to the amazement as much of the physiotherapist who had followed her for years as of the family doctor.
In one year, therefore, the child began to walk (with the physiotherapist of course) between bars, his language quickly developed until he considered putting the child in primary school.
We are still far from Lourdes, but we are getting closer!
The "miracle" is when the epileptic seizures abruptly ceased during the implementation of advice (still not medical) of astonishing simplicity to the great surprise of his wife who, from then on, saw things from a different perspective. Indeed, years of anguish, regular care, settled in the blink of an eye almost and the final coup de grace was struck when the husband asked the doctor the question about the cumulative effects of the drugs and that he- Ci, naively, but sincerely, admitted that no one knew what the cumulative drug products could give and the girl had been taking a good number of them since birth, almost, including one for her epilepsy.

Unfortunately, your reaction is common and understandable as in agriculture when some realized that they had been trapped by the productive system to the detriment of the quality and vitality of the life of the soil like plants and consequently consumers and their family; but not everyone is aware of it yet, it takes time for that, experience in the lived and especially the desire to change, which is not the least thing to do when you have a mind conservative;
Ecology is also that: to realize that everything is linked and that one cannot destroy on one side without having to pay in the short or long term.

[Gaston]

In the end, if I follow the reasoning of Janic, the scandal is not that there were medical errors, but that people took drugs

In this case, no need to open a discussion for each drug sold ...

[Janic]

Gaston hello

In the end, if I follow janic's reasoning correctly, the scandal is not that there were medical errors, but that people took medication

Sorry to give such an impression, but my point of view has been widely expressed on hundreds of procedures (like Obamot) and I have never considered that people taking drugs are responsible for anything! Nor are people who consume industrial food products responsible for this situation, because they were offered nothing else. The situation is slowly changing since more and more organic products are introduced to the food market and there, and only there, the consumer can make a responsible choice.
For therapies it is the same thing since, until these last years, only pharmaceutical chemistry was dominant and the other possible therapies considered variously as quackery or illusory as for homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy and other therapies which are starting to be better known and practiced (and we could also add magnetizers, fire cutters, spouters, etc.)

In this case, no need to open a discussion for each drug sold.

On the contrary !
Currently a drug having received a MA has been on the supposed good faith of the manufacturer of this product and is not the subject of ANY control of the health authorities (they do not have the means in men and finances), and therefore as pointed out, among others, Seralini, an insufficient duration of experiments. It is the consumer who thereby becomes a guinea pig.
Similarly, it is abnormal that no study is done on the cumulative effects of the various drugs sold in pharmacies and therefore no one, I insist no one, do not know what can give these cocktails in the short as in the long term (there are thousands of products that can give billions of harmful combinations). Now we question, from time to time, this or that isolated medoc because it is easier to accuse A product like A sick tree that would hide the forest as sick.
However the object of my intervention, by this example (among others) is to say that other solutions are possible and without health risks, on the contrary! It is still necessary to break the policy of silence (see denigration or ridicule as did Remondo by ignorance and inexperience) on these other means. But times change as in agronomy and everyone can start to cultivate their own "garden" of health (like Did 67 whose interest in its lazy garden is growing, but on an ecological site, not on the rest of the population ) without synthetic products and by respecting as much as possible the laws of nature and therefore of biology, and this requires awareness, questioning and above all perseverance.
I am therefore a little sorry that for some ecologists, this is limited to reducing its consumption of gasoline, to make wind or photovoltaic, because sensitive to pollution outdoor and almost indifferent to the most serious of all pollution, that directly from the body by multiple toxic toxic products which are not only of industrial or agricultural origin, but especially medicinal for the great benefit of the pharmaceutical lobbies.

[Gaston]

In the end, if I follow janic's reasoning correctly, the scandal is not that there were medical errors, but that people took medication

Sorry to give such an impression, but my point of view has been widely expressed on hundreds of procedures (like Obamot) and I have never considered that people taking drugs are responsible for anything!

I didn't say that you considered them responsible, but you consider that the scandal is that people are taking drugs.

However the object of my intervention, by this example (among others) is to say that other solutions are possible and without health risks, on the contrary!

Exactly, you intervene on each example to talk about what you consider to be a general problem and without making any distinction between the examples.
QED.

[Janic]

gaston hello

Janic wrote:
Sorry to give such an impression, but my point of view has been widely expressed on hundreds of procedures (like Obamot) and I have never considered that people taking drugs are responsible for anything!

I didn't say that you considered them responsible, but you consider that the scandal is that people are taking drugs.

Not really ! It turns out, given my age, that I knew a time when the use of all these chemicals was not the rule (if only because there was no cash cow from the SS to pay for all this). Doctors made more use of suction cups, leeches, diet, wraps and the like that were known to be effective. But all that disappeared in favor of synthetic products and almost no parent or individual is able to have the right simple and effective gesture without having to go through these chemicals (like farmers kidnapped by agrochemicals and many others). other sectors)
The scandal is there! But fortunately it changes little by little because there is saturation and therefore a return to methods more respectful of life, of biological balance and therefore towards more natural "medicines" starting with the precept of Hippocrates " let your food be your medicine and your medicine a food If this food has not been poisoned by phytosanitary and other endocrine disruptors.

Janic wrote:
However the object of my intervention, by this example (among others) is to say that other solutions are possible and without health risks, on the contrary!

Exactly, you intervene on each example to talk about what you consider to be a general problem and without making any distinction between the examples.

Maybe because I have lived a lot, many people met in professional, social, family life where people like to find an attentive ear to deal with their physical miseries and, unfortunately, it is a problem general. Find around you, a person (one it is still possible) not using these dangerous chemicals to solve a so-called health problem.
In case you doubt it consult the statistics on mortality in France which is better than long speeches and which give a realistic picture of sick France. President Pompidou, himself very sick, had made this reflection while visiting the hospitals: “ Soon half of France will be used to treat the other half Open the yellow pages and count the number of medics, pharmacies in your city, plus hospitals. In my childhood there were 4 doctors for a city of 10.000 inhabitants and that was enough, there were no endless queues in the waiting rooms, and I counted almost 130 general practitioners and specialists for the prefecture of my department which counts 40.000 inhabitants, in province, and it is worse in the big agglomerations. If this does not reflect the general state of illness of the populations, what will it be?
QED.
PS: Professor De Harven says that a few dozen drugs among the thousands on the market would be sufficient to deal with all the pathologies known in our regions and that the rest only exists to apply different patents on odds and ends, in order to to charge at a high, very high price, these "new" drugs that each of us pays dearly for its contributions and which collect colossal profits in the labs ... on our backs.

[Janic]

so for info:
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio ... 78527.html
"Medicines more profitable than luxury watches
In 2012, for example, the 20 largest pharmaceutical companies earned € 112 billion. For the “oil supermajors”, we are around 100 billion euros. And for the luxury giants, LVMH and other Kering, Prada and Rolex, we have reached almost 20 billion euros in net profits.
The pharmaceutical sector therefore makes much more profit than the luxury industry… What Jean-Paul Vernant says is even below the truth. It is not twice as much, but almost six times as much, at least for the year 2012. "
and who knows who pays for all this?

[chatelot16]

to be in good health you must not take medicine ... since all those who take medicine are sick

it's not humor! this is an example of absurd reasoning that confuses cause and consequence

and I find that there is too much nonsense ... we must not beat around the bush: the main problem of this story of depakine is the lack of consideration of side effects yet known for a long time ... prescribe depakine before pregnancy is a medical mistake! not a reason to criticize depakine if it is useful

to criticize the drug manufacturer who earns too much money is another story ... earn it really too much! is there no other problem in funding research?

[Obamot]

Without wanting to offend anyone, we call it a kind of observation paralogism / fallacy.

It’s not becausethere may possibly be in certain cases - confusion between causes and consequences - that however the conspiracy thesis blatant in some cases, would not exist!

Some examples:
- Depakine;
- Mediator;
- AIDS control cocktails;
- and even Codex alimentarius ...

The list is long, alas!

In truth, the day we are sick, it would be better not to use drugs too much in our time, unless they can minimize stress (although it has natural ways to cut fever or relieve pain (self-hypnosis) You really have to be very careful and not take too much medication before trying all the other means before.