Interesting article on the therapeutic testing of psilocybin, the active ingredient of magic mushrooms, which seems to showing much potential.

….If successful, the new wave of research may continue to change psilocybin’s reputation after decades of prohibition. Carhart-Harris believes the drug offers a better and more comprehensive treatment than current antidepressants, and that it could well be a powerful new therapy for a host of other mental illnesses, including anxiety and food disorders. A 2016 Johns Hopkins University study of 51 patients with life-threatening cancer showed high doses of psilocybin significantly reduced end-of-life depression and anxiety for six months in 80% of cases, and helped patients accept death; a New York University study that year showed similar results. Current trials are looking further at psilocybin’s potential for reducing smoking addiction and alcohol dependency, after initial pilots yielded powerful results. (Johns Hopkins researchers showed in a small study, for example, that 80% of heavy smokers had not smoked for a least a week, six months after psilocybin treatment.)

Bubblecar said:

Interesting article on the therapeutic testing of psilocybin, the active ingredient of magic mushrooms, which seems to showing much potential.

….If successful, the new wave of research may continue to change psilocybin’s reputation after decades of prohibition. Carhart-Harris believes the drug offers a better and more comprehensive treatment than current antidepressants, and that it could well be a powerful new therapy for a host of other mental illnesses, including anxiety and food disorders. A 2016 Johns Hopkins University study of 51 patients with life-threatening cancer showed high doses of psilocybin significantly reduced end-of-life depression and anxiety for six months in 80% of cases, and helped patients accept death; a New York University study that year showed similar results. Current trials are looking further at psilocybin’s potential for reducing smoking addiction and alcohol dependency, after initial pilots yielded powerful results. (Johns Hopkins researchers showed in a small study, for example, that 80% of heavy smokers had not smoked for a least a week, six months after psilocybin treatment.)

Related

The push to decriminalize ‘magic mushrooms’ 5 min video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=cVwj8ULytc8

Voters this week narrowly made Denver the first U.S. city to decriminalize psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms. Mark Haden, executive director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, discusses the push to decriminalize the drug as well as expand research into the substance’s potential to treat conditions including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

I think cannabis can treat depression too.

Finding the cannabinoids that do it would be interesting.

I think a lot of drug prohibition has held back a lot of medical science.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think a lot of drug prohibition has held back a lot of medical science.

Drug prohibition has also kept the admission rate to psych wards down.

Duck said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think a lot of drug prohibition has held back a lot of medical science.

Drug prohibition has also kept the admission rate to psych wards down.

neutrino’s a drug liberalization enthusiast, doesn’t realize large amounts of whatever cause chemical insult, not much better than petrol or glue sniffing

transition said:

Duck said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think a lot of drug prohibition has held back a lot of medical science.

Drug prohibition has also kept the admission rate to psych wards down.

neutrino’s a drug liberalization enthusiast, doesn’t realize large amounts of whatever cause chemical insult, not much better than petrol or glue sniffing

A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

Not into glue or petrol sniffing

Alcohol is chemical based and thee are millions of hospital admissions because of it.

Way more than cannabis admissions.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Duck said:

Drug prohibition has also kept the admission rate to psych wards down.

neutrino’s a drug liberalization enthusiast, doesn’t realize large amounts of whatever cause chemical insult, not much better than petrol or glue sniffing

A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

Not into glue or petrol sniffing

Alcohol is chemical based and thee are millions of hospital admissions because of it.

Way more than cannabis admissions.

>A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

I think that’s ^ a fib, an inexactitude

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

neutrino’s a drug liberalization enthusiast, doesn’t realize large amounts of whatever cause chemical insult, not much better than petrol or glue sniffing

A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

Not into glue or petrol sniffing

Alcohol is chemical based and thee are millions of hospital admissions because of it.

Way more than cannabis admissions.

>A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

I think that’s ^ a fib, an inexactitude

Some people like peanuts, some people are allergic to peanuts and can die from eating them.

One would what to know why some people can die and not others

That is of benefit to science.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

Not into glue or petrol sniffing

Alcohol is chemical based and thee are millions of hospital admissions because of it.

Way more than cannabis admissions.

>A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

I think that’s ^ a fib, an inexactitude

Some people like peanuts, some people are allergic to peanuts and can die from eating them.

One would what to know why some people can die and not others

That is of benefit to science.

I guess the analogy sort of works if you take the imaginative leap of considering peanuts addictive, get you stoned, and increased rates of bad behavior and criminal activities.

just a small leap, but i’m there with you.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>A drug liberalization enthusiast only in the sense that its of benefit to science.

I think that’s ^ a fib, an inexactitude

Some people like peanuts, some people are allergic to peanuts and can die from eating them.

One would what to know why some people can die and not others

That is of benefit to science.

I guess the analogy sort of works if you take the imaginative leap of considering peanuts addictive, get you stoned, and increased rates of bad behavior and criminal activities.

just a small leap, but i’m there with you.

Ive used cannabis for over 40 years and never resorted to criminal behaviours.

Worst Ive online is posting some photoshopped politicians in Nazi uniforms.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some people like peanuts, some people are allergic to peanuts and can die from eating them.

One would what to know why some people can die and not others

That is of benefit to science.

I guess the analogy sort of works if you take the imaginative leap of considering peanuts addictive, get you stoned, and increased rates of bad behavior and criminal activities.

just a small leap, but i’m there with you.

Ive used cannabis for over 40 years and never resorted to criminal behaviours.

Worst Ive online is posting some photoshopped politicians in Nazi uniforms.

you smoking or whatever privately is quite a distinct thing from advocating liberalization

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

I guess the analogy sort of works if you take the imaginative leap of considering peanuts addictive, get you stoned, and increased rates of bad behavior and criminal activities.

just a small leap, but i’m there with you.

Ive used cannabis for over 40 years and never resorted to criminal behaviours.

Worst Ive online is posting some photoshopped politicians in Nazi uniforms.

you smoking or whatever privately is quite a distinct thing from advocating liberalization

Yes.

Not knowing anything about magic mushrooms, but aren’t they hallucinogens?

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some people like peanuts, some people are allergic to peanuts and can die from eating them.

One would what to know why some people can die and not others

That is of benefit to science.

I guess the analogy sort of works if you take the imaginative leap of considering peanuts addictive, get you stoned, and increased rates of bad behavior and criminal activities.

just a small leap, but i’m there with you.

Ive used cannabis for over 40 years and never resorted to criminal behaviours.

Worst Ive online is posting some photoshopped politicians in Nazi uniforms.

Self-medicating… schizophrenia?

mollwollfumble said:

Not knowing anything about magic mushrooms, but aren’t they hallucinogens?

Yes. Hallucination depends on dose, but, as with all ‘natural’ things, you never know what you’re going to get in one mushroom to the next.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not knowing anything about magic mushrooms, but aren’t they hallucinogens?

Yes. Hallucination depends on dose, but, as with all ‘natural’ things, you never know what you’re going to get in one mushroom to the next.

There’s also the risk of secondary fungus on any mushroom.

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

think of all the research that could have been done

think of all the new medication that could be developed

and stopped by people who have no knowledge of it.

they need to be told off.

• keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.
  
  Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Yet when governments put drugs in the water supply people complain about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

I disagree

A lot of politicians do not understand medical rights and ethics.

I think its disgraceful.

furious said:

• keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.
  
  Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Yet when governments put drugs in the water supply people complain about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

They need to stop that.

I use a water filter.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

think of all the research that could have been done

think of all the new medication that could be developed

and stopped by people who have no knowledge of it.

they need to be told off.

Now at least we seem to be thinking of them as potential medical resources and not something naughty.
I don’t buy into conspiracies except for the keeping some drugs illegal as one they might be competition for pharmaceuticals and two they are a means to get money for various illegal undertakings (hello CIA) and three they are kept illegal via bribes to law makers as they are worth umpteen billions a year to crime syndicates

Id like to see a medical rights and ethics questionnaire put to all federal politicians.

That would be interesting !

Tau.Neutrino said:

Id like to see a medical rights and ethics questionnaire put to all federal politicians.

That would be interesting !

We would see a big fail.

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.
  
  Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Yet when governments put drugs in the water supply people complain about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

They need to stop that.

I use a water filter.

A filter only gets particles above a certain size (the pore size of the filter) out.

You’ll need a reverse osmosis plant (best) or a still (distillation plant) (not quite as good) to remove dissolved molecules.

Arts said:

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

Nope.

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

Nope.

It doesn’t matter. Nothing makes sense in this thread

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

Nope.

It doesn’t matter. Nothing makes sense in this thread

heh

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.
  
  Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Yet when governments put drugs in the water supply people complain about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

They need to stop that.

I use a water filter.

FMD..

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.
  
  Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

Yet when governments put drugs in the water supply people complain about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

They need to stop that.

I use a water filter.

FMD..

haha

Has anyone actually read the article? It’s quite interesting :)

Bubblecar said:

Has anyone actually read the article?

LOL

Bubblecar said:

Has anyone actually read the article? It’s quite interesting :)

Don’t be silly.

“nine out of 19 patients found that their depression was still significantly reduced”

Less than half? Fail.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

I agree totally, but not in the way you think I do. Herbal remedies still need to be banned until quality control is implemented and the safe dose is determined.

My opinion is that any drug that has passed the first phase of FDA (or equivalent) approval should be available. By first phase I mean that it is proved non-toxic on short time-spans to some humans at prescribed dose, and that it works in vitro.

Make the drug available to the public immediately after phase 1.

• Phase 1 involves 20 – 100 study participants and lasts several months. This phase is used to determine the safety and dosage of the drug, and about 70% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 2 involves up to several hundred people, who must have the disease or condition the drug supposes to treat. This phase can last from a few months to two years, and its purpose is to monitor the efficacy of the drug, as well as note side effects that may occur. Only around 30% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 3 involves 300 – 3000 volunteers and can last up to four years. It is used to continue monitoring the efficacy of the drug, as well as exploring any longer-term adverse reactions. About 25% to 30% of these drugs move on to the last phase of clinical research.
• Phase 4 involves several thousands of volunteers who have the disease or condition and continues to monitor safety and efficacy. If a drug passes this phase, it goes on to FDA review.

That would shorten the approval time and cost by a factor of about twenty.

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

People micro dose with LSD to see if it improves/alters cognitive function, it’s an interesting experiment.
Art in all it’s form has been influenced by people on drugs one wonder if it could be applied to science.
For example a physics problem is solved whilst taking a mind altering drug.

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

It has uses for alleviating migraine/cluster headaches as well.

Keeping various drugs illegal is as much about vested interests and cultural bias as the supposed harm prevention.

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

I agree totally, but not in the way you think I do. Herbal remedies still need to be banned until quality control is implemented and the safe dose is determined.

My opinion is that any drug that has passed the first phase of FDA (or equivalent) approval should be available. By first phase I mean that it is proved non-toxic on short time-spans to some humans at prescribed dose, and that it works in vitro.

Make the drug available to the public immediately after phase 1.

• Phase 1 involves 20 – 100 study participants and lasts several months. This phase is used to determine the safety and dosage of the drug, and about 70% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 2 involves up to several hundred people, who must have the disease or condition the drug supposes to treat. This phase can last from a few months to two years, and its purpose is to monitor the efficacy of the drug, as well as note side effects that may occur. Only around 30% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 3 involves 300 – 3000 volunteers and can last up to four years. It is used to continue monitoring the efficacy of the drug, as well as exploring any longer-term adverse reactions. About 25% to 30% of these drugs move on to the last phase of clinical research.
• Phase 4 involves several thousands of volunteers who have the disease or condition and continues to monitor safety and efficacy. If a drug passes this phase, it goes on to FDA review.

That would shorten the approval time and cost by a factor of about twenty.

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

I wonder that in regards to Pseudoephedrine it’s prescription only and need to show ID to supposedly reduce people buying it in bulk to make meth but I wonder if it has any effect at all on supply

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

Not really, legality doesn’t generally happen until after considered randomised control trials and this is more difficult with humans because of ethics.

Nope.

It doesn’t matter. Nothing makes sense in this thread

Bugger. I thought my comment about filters etc did.

Bubblecar said:

Has anyone actually read the article? It’s quite interesting :)

Um, no. OK, will read.

Have now. Hypnotherapy ought to be able to do the same thing?

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

If you are cynical it means the doctor gets paid just to renew a prescription

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

keeping some drugs illegal is human rights abuse.

Medical rights in particular. So crimes are being committed !

I agree totally, but not in the way you think I do. Herbal remedies still need to be banned until quality control is implemented and the safe dose is determined.

My opinion is that any drug that has passed the first phase of FDA (or equivalent) approval should be available. By first phase I mean that it is proved non-toxic on short time-spans to some humans at prescribed dose, and that it works in vitro.

Make the drug available to the public immediately after phase 1.

• Phase 1 involves 20 – 100 study participants and lasts several months. This phase is used to determine the safety and dosage of the drug, and about 70% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 2 involves up to several hundred people, who must have the disease or condition the drug supposes to treat. This phase can last from a few months to two years, and its purpose is to monitor the efficacy of the drug, as well as note side effects that may occur. Only around 30% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 3 involves 300 – 3000 volunteers and can last up to four years. It is used to continue monitoring the efficacy of the drug, as well as exploring any longer-term adverse reactions. About 25% to 30% of these drugs move on to the last phase of clinical research.
• Phase 4 involves several thousands of volunteers who have the disease or condition and continues to monitor safety and efficacy. If a drug passes this phase, it goes on to FDA review.

That would shorten the approval time and cost by a factor of about twenty.

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

I wonder that in regards to Pseudoephedrine it’s prescription only and need to show ID to supposedly reduce people buying it in bulk to make meth but I wonder if it has any effect at all on supply

Psuedoephedrine isn’t script only.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

You’re just creating longer queues at pharmacies.

Doctors have a lot more responsibilities these days. For example, even if I’m getting a simple flu shot or a dressing changed, the doctor still has to come in and check everything’s good. I imagine with prescriptions, it’s a matter of is the medication working, does the dose need to be adjusted, do you need this medication anymore, is it interacting with your other medications that you may have started since your last visit, is there something new on the market we can try and a host of other considerations I haven’t even thought of. How much responsibility do you want a pharmacist to take?

poikilotherm said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

I agree totally, but not in the way you think I do. Herbal remedies still need to be banned until quality control is implemented and the safe dose is determined.

My opinion is that any drug that has passed the first phase of FDA (or equivalent) approval should be available. By first phase I mean that it is proved non-toxic on short time-spans to some humans at prescribed dose, and that it works in vitro.

Make the drug available to the public immediately after phase 1.

• Phase 1 involves 20 – 100 study participants and lasts several months. This phase is used to determine the safety and dosage of the drug, and about 70% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 2 involves up to several hundred people, who must have the disease or condition the drug supposes to treat. This phase can last from a few months to two years, and its purpose is to monitor the efficacy of the drug, as well as note side effects that may occur. Only around 30% of these drugs move on to the next clinical research phase.
• Phase 3 involves 300 – 3000 volunteers and can last up to four years. It is used to continue monitoring the efficacy of the drug, as well as exploring any longer-term adverse reactions. About 25% to 30% of these drugs move on to the last phase of clinical research.
• Phase 4 involves several thousands of volunteers who have the disease or condition and continues to monitor safety and efficacy. If a drug passes this phase, it goes on to FDA review.

That would shorten the approval time and cost by a factor of about twenty.

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

I wonder that in regards to Pseudoephedrine it’s prescription only and need to show ID to supposedly reduce people buying it in bulk to make meth but I wonder if it has any effect at all on supply

Psuedoephedrine isn’t script only.

OK I thought it was

Plus, for some medications, even though you have a script for them, the pharmacist still needs to ring the GP for an authorisation number. Happens for my mum’s ulcer medication.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

Says the shill for big pharma…

runs away giggling

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

Says the shill for big pharma…

runs away giggling

Nah he just doesn’t want to do extra work 😛

Divine Angel said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

Says the shill for big pharma…

runs away giggling

Nah he just doesn’t want to do extra work 😛

:)

There’s scope for some extra input/management from the pharm in certain cases/circumstances. Molls idea won’t fix much.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

because dr google told me what was best for me.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

Is it important and they do not understand it

apart from that we dont have the technology for it yet

I wish we did though for a mass market

Individualized medication based on the patients own chemistry

>>>I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

That proves to me that they do not understand it.

Divine Angel said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also, many more drugs need to be removed from the “prescription only” list and placed on the “over the counter” list. By that I mean about half the drugs on the “prescription only” list. It’s then up to a central register for chemists to ensure that customers are not inadvertently exceeding the safe dose. This would actually be much safer than the present system.

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

You’re just creating longer queues at pharmacies.

Doctors have a lot more responsibilities these days. For example, even if I’m getting a simple flu shot or a dressing changed, the doctor still has to come in and check everything’s good. I imagine with prescriptions, it’s a matter of is the medication working, does the dose need to be adjusted, do you need this medication anymore, is it interacting with your other medications that you may have started since your last visit, is there something new on the market we can try and a host of other considerations I haven’t even thought of. How much responsibility do you want a pharmacist to take?

> You’re just creating longer queues at pharmacies.

No, shorter queues. Fewer placebos sold. Pharmacies sell placebos now. Better if they sold something that actually had a chance of doing you some good.

> How much responsibility do you want a pharmacist to take?

The pharmacist – only the responsibility for ensuring that the same person doesn’t walk into ten pharmacies asking for the same drug. No other responsibility.

The packaging, on the other hand, has more responsibility. Minimum effective dosage, maximum safe dosage, diseases treated and effectiveness for each (remove all the cure-all claims). Eg. Packaging on painkillers needs to have a strength rating relative to other painkillers, a loss of effectiveness over time rating, a side-effects rating, and a withdrawal symptoms rating.

> Doctors have a lot more responsibilities these days.

Yes. Too many. They need be be able to concentrate on four:

• Diagnosis
• Cure
• Medical advice
• Regular check-ups

That accounts for fewer than half of all doctor visits these days.

> even if I’m getting a simple flu shot

You live in the past. Flu shot is done at pharmacies these days. A nurse could do it. Ditto changing bandages,

> does the dose need to be adjusted, do you need this medication anymore

People are experts on their own bodies, especially older people, not doctors. No doctor can ever fully understand a disease unless they’ve had it themselves.

mollwollfumble said:

People are experts on their own bodies, especially older people, not doctors. No doctor can ever fully understand a disease unless they’ve had it themselves.

LOL. I guess that comes under the same bullshit as Mum’s giving their kids bleach enemas to cure the kids autism.

I did get my flu shot at the pharmacy. However, these are not available for children under 12. Mini Me, aged 4, needed a dr’s ok before she got her flu shot and they can only administer it at a doctor’s clinic. (There are free vaccination clinics around, the shots are still administered by a nurse after a doctor’s O.K.)

The nurse does change a dressing, but the dr still needs to come look at it.

Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

There is big difference between having information and not having it.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What are the benefits of more medications being OTC?

Shorter waiting times in doctors waiting rooms for starters. Freeing up doctors for more important medical work.

I wonder why ensuring the right medication for the right person at the right dose is seen as unimportant.

How terribly old fashioned of you..

Tau.Neutrino said:

There is big difference between having information and not having it.

The information is useless if you lack the skills to interpret it.

poikilotherm said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There is big difference between having information and not having it.

The information is useless if you lack the skills to interpret it.

How many politicians understand chemistry and medicines ?

Hardly any and they are trying to make laws about things which they don’t know much about.

Lets give all federal politicians a medical rights and medical ethics questionnaire..

They would fail .

This thread has many weird entries in it…

Divine Angel said:

I did get my flu shot at the pharmacy. However, these are not available for children under 12. Mini Me, aged 4, needed a dr’s ok before she got her flu shot and they can only administer it at a doctor’s clinic. (There are free vaccination clinics around, the shots are still administered by a nurse after a doctor’s O.K.)

The nurse does change a dressing, but the dr still needs to come look at it.

Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

> Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

Of course. They also need to issue disable parking permits and time off work for starters. But some of the drudge work needs to be eliminated.

buffy said:

This thread has many weird entries in it…

all from the same poster?

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

This thread has many weird entries in it…

all from the same poster?

There are at least two posters that are consistently weird.

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I did get my flu shot at the pharmacy. However, these are not available for children under 12. Mini Me, aged 4, needed a dr’s ok before she got her flu shot and they can only administer it at a doctor’s clinic. (There are free vaccination clinics around, the shots are still administered by a nurse after a doctor’s O.K.)

The nurse does change a dressing, but the dr still needs to come look at it.

Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

> Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

Of course. They also need to issue disable parking permits and time off work for starters. But some of the drudge work needs to be eliminated.

they kinda do issue acrod permits. you need a dr cert to get one. or in our case be a organisation that needs them for their cars.

poikilotherm said:

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

This thread has many weird entries in it…

all from the same poster?

There are at least two posters that are consistently weird.

well yes, i did realise that after i posted but we know one is certifiably weird. Mmmmm, that doesn’t work either.

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I did get my flu shot at the pharmacy. However, these are not available for children under 12. Mini Me, aged 4, needed a dr’s ok before she got her flu shot and they can only administer it at a doctor’s clinic. (There are free vaccination clinics around, the shots are still administered by a nurse after a doctor’s O.K.)

The nurse does change a dressing, but the dr still needs to come look at it.

Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

> Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

Of course. They also need to issue disable parking permits and time off work for starters. But some of the drudge work needs to be eliminated.

they kinda do issue acrod permits. you need a dr cert to get one. or in our case be a organisation that needs them for their cars.

And in our case we need to refill out the form every (whatever) years and then waste the doctors time to do their bit because, you know, mr arts may end up less permanently paralysed.

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Dare I suggest your version of “what doctors should stick to” is far too simplistic.

Of course. They also need to issue disable parking permits and time off work for starters. But some of the drudge work needs to be eliminated.

they kinda do issue acrod permits. you need a dr cert to get one. or in our case be a organisation that needs them for their cars.

And in our case we need to refill out the form every (whatever) years and then waste the doctors time to do their bit because, you know, mr arts may end up less permanently paralysed.

Dumb

buffy said:

This thread has many weird entries in it…

Very near over-polite!

I admit to experimenting with magic mushrooms many decades ago. I found them easy to leave alone. Even in my darkest depression ridden days I would not be keen to play with magic mushrooms again. And that’s good. Sometimes this place is covered by them. And they are all safe from me.

Also many decades ago I experimented with some LSD. I was in the position where I knew lots of people taking lots of good acid. So a number of times I took some acid that was rated as fine. Legendary.
Yet I don’t want to go back there either.

However I do think that taking acid could be life changing/turning it around stuff. But I think it has to me more than ‘turn brain on’ There should be some sort of input. Be it something instructional or something therapeutic. (Looking back a day in the bush with a black dot, a loaf of bread and a copy of the Tao te Ching did help.)

Anyway…mark me down as I would prefer to be depressed.

‘

sarahs mum said:

I admit to experimenting with magic mushrooms many decades ago. I found them easy to leave alone. Even in my darkest depression ridden days I would not be keen to play with magic mushrooms again. And that’s good. Sometimes this place is covered by them. And they are all safe from me.

Also many decades ago I experimented with some LSD. I was in the position where I knew lots of people taking lots of good acid. So a number of times I took some acid that was rated as fine. Legendary.
Yet I don’t want to go back there either.

However I do think that taking acid could be life changing/turning it around stuff. But I think it has to me more than ‘turn brain on’ There should be some sort of input. Be it something instructional or something therapeutic. (Looking back a day in the bush with a black dot, a loaf of bread and a copy of the Tao te Ching did help.)

Anyway…mark me down as I would prefer to be depressed.

‘

Interesting.

I’m feeling loads better with a daily glass of Aldi-brand Berocca. B vitamins are good for mental health.

I’d be keen to try some of that medicinal choccy kii uses.

Divine Angel said:

sarahs mum said:

I admit to experimenting with magic mushrooms many decades ago. I found them easy to leave alone. Even in my darkest depression ridden days I would not be keen to play with magic mushrooms again. And that’s good. Sometimes this place is covered by them. And they are all safe from me.

Also many decades ago I experimented with some LSD. I was in the position where I knew lots of people taking lots of good acid. So a number of times I took some acid that was rated as fine. Legendary.
Yet I don’t want to go back there either.

However I do think that taking acid could be life changing/turning it around stuff. But I think it has to me more than ‘turn brain on’ There should be some sort of input. Be it something instructional or something therapeutic. (Looking back a day in the bush with a black dot, a loaf of bread and a copy of the Tao te Ching did help.)

Anyway…mark me down as I would prefer to be depressed.

‘

Interesting.

I’m feeling loads better with a daily glass of Aldi-brand Berocca. B vitamins are good for mental health.

I’d be keen to try some of that medicinal choccy kii uses.

Could we do the medicinal choccy depo?