We criticize the FDA for not being cautious enough, but consider these scary words

"Aspirin side effects kill about a thousand people a year in the US. If aspirin were a new drug, it would have a tough time getting approved by the FDA and would only be available by prescription."

From Dr. Leo Galland on HuffPo blog. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/aspirin-and-vitamin-c-tog_b_529058.html

I don't know anything about Galland or his work. I'm just posting these words as food for thought. Personally, as a consumer I want more choices, not fewer, and don't appreciate the bureaucratic gatekeepers who more often than not don't have as much sense as I do. I also don't appreciate that FDA is frequently in the pocket of big pharma. WTF are we supposed to do?

I think it's ok in moderation... but it apparently reduces mucus in the stomach and intestines and that which leaves them more vulnerable.

I prefer not to mess with it.

Good lord. This post was about the sad and ridiculous fact that aspirin probably wouldn't be approved in the U.S. (if in any other country) in today's creepy, capricious bureaucratic climate. It was *not* about the relative merits of aspirin. Never mind.

For me, its less about a genuine concern for human health on the part of the FDA, and more about guarding the market share/profit margin for big pharma's pain medications. There is a huge bureaucratic drug cartel operating in this country. I just heard a report yesterday morning that focused on women, saying that over 400,000 women died from prescription pain med related deaths last year. That is a ridiculous figure. There isn't another category of drug out there that accounts for numbers like that. I'm not sure but probably even in the illegal drug trade with residual deaths related to the trafficking itself and not the use. But since guys in white lab coats with medical degrees are slinging the dope, we treat it completely differently. But they are handed out like gold stars in an elementary school, you need almost nothing other than a report of pain and you'll be handed a scrip for very powerful, addictive drugs. I can't imagine the amount of revenue being generated through this sanctioned, subsidized cartel.

Anthony, I understand where you're coming from.  I am no fan of big pharma myself, and typically reject the use of pharmaceuticals.

But in the case of pain meds, we *need* those drugs.  They frequently play an important part in the healing process.  

However, since this big clampdown on controlled pharma substances I have had two friends who have had surgery recently tell me they were underprescribed pain medication during convalescence and had to do some severe suffering, or resort to OD-ing on acetomenaphin(sp?), which is infinitely worse on your liver than any pain med.  Their doctors simply would not prescribe them more drugs because of new regulations, dangers of "addiction" (from a 10 day 'scrip, yeah right ), etc.

I also am suspicious that those figures quoted in your article were cooked a bit.  Whatever activist organization or government agency with an agenda to push will do that, with a demographic likely to get a lot of attention.   In this case it's women dying from prescription drugs, which, they always resort to women if they can't use children.  But if they could get away with it I'm sure we would be hearing that hundreds of thousands of tiny tots die every year from prescription drugs because the kids thought they were candy or whatever.

Further, because I'm feeling contrary today, I'll throw this out there:  It's not the fault of the pharmaceutical industry that people become addicted to drugs that in many instances do a great deal of good.  IT IS THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE TAKING THE DRUGS.  I am an addict.  I know what it's like.  My own personal addiction problems are also how I know that as long as there are "compassionate" people who blame the pharmaceutical industry for the problem of addiction rather than put the blame squarely where it belongs (on the people taking the drugs), then the addicts are going to keep on being really happy campers, and they'll get something from somewhere to keep them going.  All they need is an excuse to not take responsibility for their own behavior, and they get handed that on a silver platter by people who think like you.

Not slamming you personally, BTW. Love your posts.   I hope you know what I mean.  

Anyway, taking the drugs away and putting big pharma out of business won't cure the addiction problem.  But it will harm an entire class of law-abiding people like my friends (and maybe even you and I, one day) who can't get useful, necessary drugs when they need them, because of the behavior of an irresponsible minority.

Haha. You slammed me too hard.

I agree with a ton of what you said. The FDA being too liberal is just as bad as the FDA being too conservative. The ambivalence is concerning. I do agree with the usefulness of pain medication, and more than likely the FDA is regulating use in the wrong places. The surgery aspect was a good example. My brother recently went through surgery, and absolutely, if he had not been given enough pain medication it would have made recovery difficult. There's no sense in being too strict in that sense. It has more to do with physicians being too quick to prescribe things like vicadin for someone who complains of frequent headaches. Instead of trying to figure out the problem, it becomes let's just give you something to get by, and that thing is going to be fairly likely to hook you with long term use. I probably have a more sensitive perspective to this because that exact situation happened to my mother and it ruined her life.

The addiction part of it, like you said, is a two party engagement. Obviously there is a physiologic and psychological component to addiction. On one hand, you could tell someone, "Hey, it ultimately your choice" and you would be absolutely right. But as an addict myself, you and I both know that we aren't operating with the same thought patterns as a person who hasn't allowed themselves to become addicts. Our brain chemistry is altered and favors that addictive pathway. Is it our fault? Yep. But at the same time our brains are hijacked by a very powerful machine. So in some sense, the enablers are just as much to blame as the addicts. People who play off of that drive are part of the problem. But again, my opinion on prescription pain meds is probably biased being the way its effected my family's life. Someone who hasn't had that experience will bring a totally different perspective.

Can we fully blame McDonalds for making the food they do? Well at some point it becomes the choice of each person whether or not they eat there. But the drive to eat fatty, sugary foods is a powerful evolutionary impetus. Putting that in front of someone literally alters the way they are thinking. So I do believe some people are more susceptible than others to different triggers.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:It has more to do with physicians being too quick to prescribe things like vicadin for someone who complains of frequent headaches. Instead of trying to figure out the problem, it becomes let's just give you something to get by, and that thing is going to be fairly likely to hook you with long term use. I probably have a more sensitive perspective to this because that exact situation happened to my mother and it ruined her life.

I'm really sorry to hear about your mom. I totally agree when there's culpability in the case of pain meds, it's probably lazy doctors and not big pharma.

Funny you mention McDonald's because that kind of food is my own personal beast. I've kicked all my other addictions, leaving me with junk food, which up until recently seemed to be winning the war for my health. Interestingly, though, I've been doing Ray Peat for about a week, and this is the first time in a long time I've not craved a cheeseburger and fries every day. After the first couple days cravings went away. Hard to say if it will stay that way, but for right now, I'm lovin' it (pun intended). har

Also interestingly, my blood sugar is *down*, reliably. Last four days in a row. I have fairly stubborn insulin resistance, so it's not normal yet, but what with eating ice cream right before turning in and drastically increased fructose throughout the day, according to conventional wisdom you would expect my fasting levels to be higher in the morning. Absolutely not the case.