Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: NobodySavedMe on 01/03/2009 20:36:54
-
Shaun Jones a healthy 14 year old was killed by a doctors prescription for acne 5 days ago.
The doctor has been held blameless by the doctors council.This is a classic case of doctors protecting their own.The medication came with no warnings that it could kill.
It is very strange this was not headline news.He was white,tall,popular and funloving.
Have you noticed when anyone dies nowadays they are always described as popular and fun loving.Why is that?
Another unfortunate reason maybe that he Welsh and the Welsh people suffer discrimination and inbred bigotry from the English.
The medication called sebomin is worth $230 million in annual profit.
This may explain why there was no mainstream media publication and was confined to page 9 in a small paragraph.Clearly warnings had gone out to keep it buried.
Shaun Jones was a healthy rugby player, he was popular and fun loving.
He had his whole life ahead of him.
Yet he killed by a single tablet prescribed by his doctor who never bothered to check for side effects.
One doctor I spoke to said this was nothing and that more then 200000 people are killed every year in America but the drugs are just too profitable and the media and politicians have been bribed by the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.
He said they had been paid $20 billion last year.
You may have noted how the House of Lords peers were involved in a "money to change the law" scandal.
I feel very sorry for the family of Shaun Jones.To have a 14 year old son killed by a single doctors tablet...words fail me.
Mod edit - changed the subject, as it was a defamatory lie
-
Welsh people suffer discrimination and inbred bigotry from the English.
Can you explain "inbred bigotry", please.
-
Can you provide a single shred of evidence for this offensive tirade? Please do so or this thread will be removed.
-
Can you provide a single shred of evidence for this offensive tirade? Please do so or this thread will be removed.
You think lamenting a young boys death due to a doctors carelessness is offensive?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5803223.ece
David Byers
A fit and healthy 14-year-old rugby player died hours after taking an acne treatment which his mother claimed came with no safety leaflet, an inquest heard today.
Shaun Jones, described as an exceptionally popular student, saw his doctor about spots on his back and shoulders after learning that his friends had been given medication to deal with similar problems.
The 6ft schoolboy of Pontypridd, South Wales, was sold a drug called Sebomin
-
Thanks - I had also sought it out for you.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090225/tuk-teen-dies-after-taking-acne-pills-dba1618.html
There's a news story that puts a very different angle on it than you decided to do. He suffered an acute reaction to a commonly prescribed drug, a bit like an allergy. As he had never taken the drug before, how could anyone have known that he would react like this? Should everyone be allergy tested prior to taking any common substance? Thousands of others take these drugs without this reaction.
It's nonsense to imply that the doctor should be punished - should parents be punished when they first discover their child has a peanut allergy? What if it leads to the child's death? By your logic, the parents would be to blame.
And what has him being Welsh got to do with it? This was a tradgedy, pure and simple, yet you have to bring xenophobia into it?
Shaun Jones a healthy 14 year old was killed by a doctors prescription for acne 5 days ago.
No, he wasn't. He died as a result of an unfortunate reaction to a very common prescription medication.
The doctor has been held blameless by the doctors council.This is a classic case of doctors protecting their own.
On account of him doing nothing wrong.
The medication came with no warnings that it could kill.
This particular packet came with no warnings leaflet - it certainly should have, but that has nothing to do with the doctor who prescribed it, and the parent could have questioned it at that point. As it happens, a list of the known side effects wouldn't have made ant difference.
Another unfortunate reason maybe that he Welsh and the Welsh people suffer discrimination and inbred bigotry from the English.
Offensive nonsense.
The medication called sebomin is worth $230 million in annual profit.
This may explain why there was no mainstream media publication and was confined to page 9 in a small paragraph.Clearly warnings had gone out to keep it buried.
Paranoid delusional nonsense.
Shaun Jones was a healthy rugby player, he was popular and fun loving.
He had his whole life ahead of him.
So? Tragic things happen to all sorts of people.
Yet he killed by a single tablet prescribed by his doctor who never bothered to check for side effects.
How do you know? Were you there at his consultation? Have you thoroughly interviewed the doctor involved? Is your paranoid delusion about pharma companies being evil leading you to conlude things that are not, in fact, true?
One doctor I spoke to said this was nothing and that more then 200000 people are killed every year in America but the drugs are just too profitable and the media and politicians have been bribed by the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.
He said they had been paid $20 billion last year.
Evidence please.
You may have noted how the House of Lords peers were involved in a "money to change the law" scandal.
Relevance please.
I feel very sorry for the family of Shaun Jones.To have a 14 year old son killed by a single doctors tablet...words fail me.
Finally, something we can agree on. I too feel sorry for the family in this tragic situation. I don't, however, seek to blame anyone.
-
Can you provide a single shred of evidence for this offensive tirade? Please do so or this thread will be removed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5803223.ece
David Byers
A fit and healthy 14-year-old rugby player died hours after taking an acne treatment which his mother claimed came with no safety leaflet, an inquest heard today.
Shaun Jones, described as an exceptionally popular student, saw his doctor about spots on his back and shoulders after learning that his friends had been given medication to deal with similar problems.
The 6ft schoolboy of Pontypridd, South Wales, was sold a drug called Sebomin
You do realise the story you just linked bears little resemblance to your interpretation, don't you? It quite clearly states that the doctor did discuss the side effects with him. It was amiss of the pharmacist to not contact the doctor, it was amiss of someone not to include the fact sheet.
Personally, I don't take tablets unless I have read through the contra-indications first.
-
I'm still wondering about inbred bigotry. It's a novel concept.
I'd also like to know where the notion that Welsh people are discriminated against by the Engllish comes from. If anything it's the other way around. English people in Wales are often subjected to abuse & violence. And who remembers English people having their homes in Wales blown up by Welsh nationallists?
-
I'm still wondering about inbred bigotry. It's a novel concept.
I'd also like to know where the notion that Welsh people are discriminated against by the Engllish comes from. If anything it's the other way around. English people in Wales are often subjected to abuse & violence. And who remembers English people having their homes in Wales blown up by Welsh nationallists?
What i am trying to say is that stand up comedians frequently cast aspersions on the character of the Welsh by connecting them to sheep in a
offensive way and this results in a dismissive attitude toward the Welsh making them seem less important.
-
You think lamenting a young boys death due to a doctors carelessness is offensive?
Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I think spreading defamatory lies about a medical professional is offensive. I think using a tragic situation as an opportunity to spread your poisonous nonsense about the medical profession is nonsense. I think launching off on a rant in which you accuse a person of malpractice, manslaughter or murder is offensive.
-
Oh dear. I often comment on people from Norfolk being inbred but that doesn't mean I discriminate against them.
Now stop being a silly sausage (English or German sausage; I don't mind) and try to post something sensible.
-
So, we're not allowed to have a joke about the Welsh but you're allowed to slag off Moslems, as a whole. Where's the consistency in that?
Scientifically speaking, what would happen if the Ottoman Empire re-emerged?
[MOD EDIT - Please, pretty please, can you phrase your post titles as questions, which is our forum policy. THank you.]
The idea is impossible.
They are primitive and have zero technolological capability.lol was intended.
Arabs pride themselves on having invented the numeral zero 300 years ago and since then have gone on to continue to invent zero since as they have Islam as albatross around their neck which promises INSHALLAH everything.
Inshallah means:- This means "God Willing".
This translates to let us sit on our collective butts,waiting for handouts from the west whom we hate,and God will give what we want when he decides in his mysterious way to recognize our devotion(TRANSLATION excuse for laziness to him).
This god dependency culture has made the muslim world the most backward and the chances of a ottoman empire is zero.
Think about it.
The Middle East is very socially and technologically backward.They need Americans to operate the complex machines which they don't understand.
They need to have millions of western workers to operate them.
They have been defeated 6 times by a very small country called Isreal.
There is more chance of snow in hell then a Ottoman Empire.
The chances of a ottoman empire is zero.
Exactly zero.
-
About as consistent as the jelly that Ben and Dave made with fresh pinapples.
-
You think lamenting a young boys death due to a doctors carelessness is offensive?
Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I think spreading defamatory lies about a medical professional is offensive. I think using a tragic situation as an opportunity to spread your poisonous nonsense about the medical profession is nonsense. I think launching off on a rant in which you accuse a person of malpractice, manslaughter or murder is offensive.
Is it defamatory to expose the truth?
Do you deny that 200000 people in the USA die every year as a direct result of side effects from prescription drugs from doctors?
Did you know that the parents of Shaun Jone are going to legal action as a result of this as reported in this mornings news?
Do you deny the need to make doctors and drug companies responsible for their products?
-
You think lamenting a young boys death due to a doctors carelessness is offensive?
Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I think spreading defamatory lies about a medical professional is offensive. I think using a tragic situation as an opportunity to spread your poisonous nonsense about the medical profession is nonsense. I think launching off on a rant in which you accuse a person of malpractice, manslaughter or murder is offensive.
Is it defamatory to expose the truth?
Nope, but it is defamatory to say that a doctor killed a child, when the outcome was entirely unpredictable and certainly not the doctors fault.
Do you deny that 200000 people in the USA die every year as a direct result of side effects from prescription drugs from doctors?
I have no idea how many people die as a result of the side effects of medication, and neither do you.
Did you know that the parents of Shaun Jone are going to legal action as a result of this as reported in this mornings news?
But that wouldn't be against the doctor who prescribed a commonly used drug, would it? It may be against the packaging company for not including a warnings leaflet, the pharmacist for not checking with the doctor, or the government for not enforcing stricter drug labelling.
In fact, here's a quote for you from Shaun's mother - "The doctor that gave him the tablets is really upset, but we don't blame him. It was just one of those terrible things."
Do you deny the need to make doctors and drug companies responsible for their products?
No, and they are, that's why drugs have to go through such extensive testing and doctors have a council - you may note there is no such council of builders, who can strike you off and stop you from being a builder ever again, nor for accountants, politicians, shopkeepers...
-
Ben - I don't think there's any point talking to NSM anymore. He/she won't take any notice and will just continue to post ill-informed and prejudiced invective.
-
He/she clearly has a very biased opinion.
-
The headline was good. It seems to have been a tragic reaction to a prescription drug.
-
One doctor I spoke to said
Why would you be talking to doctors when you clearly despise them? They prescribe drugs that are made by big evil pharmacuetical companies afterall.
-
Isn't it a pity that people are so obsessed with body image that they are prepared to take potentially dangerous drugs to "treat" a perfectly normal aspect of the human condition?
-
One doctor I spoke to said
Why would you be talking to doctors when you clearly despise them? They prescribe drugs that are made by big evil pharmacuetical companies afterall.
The mother only said it was not the doctors fault as he probably blamed "somebody" else.
Once she came to realize the facts ,She has started the legal action.I wish her the best and I HOPE SHE EXPOSES THE HORRIBLE TRUTH.
I do not despise doctors per se.
I despise the fact that most of them have put patient care at the bottom and other interests at the top.
They have become little more than overpaid vending machines and shop fronts for dangerous drug dealers.
-
One doctor I spoke to said
Why would you be talking to doctors when you clearly despise them? They prescribe drugs that are made by big evil pharmacuetical companies afterall.
The mother only said it was not the doctors fault as he probably blamed "somebody" else.
This isn't true, is it? You have decided this is what happened, despite not having a clue about it. How can you expect people to take you seriously when you just make things up?
Once she came to realize the facts ,She has started the legal action.I wish her the best and I HOPE SHE EXPOSES THE HORRIBLE TRUTH.
The horrible truth that this was a tragic accident that could not have been predicted? Why do you seek to blame someone?
I do not despise doctors per se.
I despise the fact that most of them have put patient care at the bottom and other interests at the top.
They have become little more than overpaid vending machines and shop fronts for dangerous drug dealers.
But this isn't actually true, is it? It's just your very biased opinion. Firstly, doctors will recommend lifestyle changes before medication, so how does that fit your hypothesis? Secondly, the drug companies are not "dangerous drug dealers". These drugs require extensive tests and regulation.
-
I really like Charlotte Church !
-
Isn't it a pity that people are so obsessed with body image that they are prepared to take potentially dangerous drugs to "treat" a perfectly normal aspect of the human condition?
True, though I understand things like acne can have far reaching mental implications, as the associated loss of confidence can lead to social difficulties, and then depression.
-
I really like Charlotte Church !
Cheers Neil, I think we needed that!
-
I really like Charlotte Church !
Cheers Neil, I think we needed that!
I will talk to you later neilep.
On a lighter note as the newscaster would say I like Charlotte Church too ,but her pop singing has failed for me as it seems to be highly contrived and not spontaneous.
Unfortunately she has put on considerable weight since I saw her last time on television indicating a solidly built frame.
-
I really like Charlotte Church !
Cheers Neil, I think we needed that!
I will talk to you later neilep.
On a lighter note as the newscaster would say I like Charlotte Church too ,but her pop singing has failed for me as it seems to be highly contrived and not spontaneous.
Unfortunately she has put on considerable weight since I saw her last time on television indicating a solidly built frame.
I think she's had a couple of children, so I think a bit of weight gain is fair. And she's not exactly obese, is she?
Strange how this feeds into Paul's post above - people are so judgemental about appearances, and this creates the pressure he was referring to.
-
On a lighter note as the newscaster would say I like Charlotte Church too ,but her pop singing has failed for me as it seems to be highly contrived and not spontaneous.
Since when has pop music not been contrived? I was in the music business for years and that was always the case. Pop music has always been produced to maximise sales. As such it is formulaic and aimed at the lowest common demoninator.
And as for her having put on weight - so what? Does that affect her singing? What about Pavarotti? He was rather large. Or Alison Moyet? The Weather Girls? The truth is that Charlotte Church's voice just isn't really suited to pop music. She's too good. Very few operatically trained singers can sing pop music; Russell Watson being a notable exception.
Anyway, being fat is her own fault for being with a rugby player. And for being Welsh - too many leek & potato pies! [:P]
-
Isn't it a pity that people are so obsessed with body image that they are prepared to take potentially dangerous drugs to "treat" a perfectly normal aspect of the human condition?
True, though I understand things like acne can have far reaching mental implications, as the associated loss of confidence can lead to social difficulties, and then depression.
As far as I can tell that's part of the same problem. If society realised that there are more important things to worry about than spots the "victims" of acne could just get on with their lives.
BTW, Charlote Church is a perfectly fine example of humanity, but I prefer Myleen Klass.
It's mildly interesting to note that
1 they are both female singers.
2 They are both mothers and
3 they are both spectacularly unlikely to be interested in me.
-
Oh dear. I often comment on people from Norfolk being inbred but that doesn't mean I discriminate against them.
Objection! We're not all inbred, just most of us [;D]
-
Oh dear. I often comment on people from Norfolk being inbred but that doesn't mean I discriminate against them.
Objection! We're not all inbred, just most of us [;D]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Ffreak%2F2.gif&hash=8301b77418f63ad3c1db1a57730b28ed)
-
I spend my time writing scientific and promotional material for pharma companies. I can absolutely guarantee that nothing gets approved by the FDA (US) and EMEA (EU) without absolutely insane amounts of safety data. These things are tested rigourously through multiple phases of clinical trials, and it doesn't stop post-marketing either. Occasionally new side-effects do come to light, especially where a drug starts to be used for more and more indications.
And when it comes to listing side effects, they must all be listed, even where its not conclusive if it was caused by the drug or by some other confounding factor. There are so many variables when taking a drug, sometimes even down to what you eat and what genes you own, that its absolutely impossible for all side-effects to be predicted.
Furthermore, pharma companies are bound not only by law, which is extememly stringent to put it mildly, they must also abide by the pharmaceutical companies code of practice, called the ABPI in the UK. They can't just 'promote' a drug, not even to doctors and pharmacists. There are restrictions on what words you can use, in what context, when you can use them, and to whom in all adverts, articles, sales material etc etc etc.
Yes, of course pharma companies are out to make money, thats what we all go to work to do after all, but to make them out as greedy evil corporations is just plain ridiculous. You could say the same (or even worse) for sweet manufacturers, or cigarette companies. At least pharma co's are trying to make people well!
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Ffreak%2F2.gif&hash=8301b77418f63ad3c1db1a57730b28ed)
You found a picture of me!
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Ffreak%2F2.gif&hash=8301b77418f63ad3c1db1a57730b28ed)
You found a picture of me!
I thought it was your twin sister [:P]
-
At least you got the sex right - can't be that bad then [;D]
-
I spend my time writing scientific and promotional material for pharma companies. I can absolutely guarantee that nothing gets approved by the FDA (US) and EMEA (EU) without absolutely insane amounts of safety data. These things are tested rigourously through multiple phases of clinical trials, and it doesn't stop post-marketing either. Occasionally new side-effects do come to light, especially where a drug starts to be used for more and more indications.
And when it comes to listing side effects, they must all be listed, even where its not conclusive if it was caused by the drug or by some other confounding factor. There are so many variables when taking a drug, sometimes even down to what you eat and what genes you own, that its absolutely impossible for all side-effects to be predicted.
Furthermore, pharma companies are bound not only by law, which is extememly stringent to put it mildly, they must also abide by the pharmaceutical companies code of practice, called the ABPI in the UK. They can't just 'promote' a drug, not even to doctors and pharmacists. There are restrictions on what words you can use, in what context, when you can use them, and to whom in all adverts, articles, sales material etc etc etc.
Yes, of course pharma companies are out to make money, thats what we all go to work to do after all, but to make them out as greedy evil corporations is just plain ridiculous. You could say the same (or even worse) for sweet manufacturers, or cigarette companies. At least pharma co's are trying to make people well!
You seem to be unaware of the recent fraud where drug companies were using their own employees to review their own drugs or in some they were adding the names of prominant researchers and mailing them $5000 to $50000 cheques for "permission" to use their name.
Hardly impartial reviews as you claim.
In any case today Professor Micheal Oliver confirmed that doctors were being negligent and using tick boxes to inflate their own salaries by prescribing these drugs.
-
NSM- can you cite any references for your claims? If not, then I suggest you stop making them.
-
no proof = no credibility
-
Good morning/afternoon/evening/night*, Damo
*delete as appropriate.
-
Good evening, DB, how are you?
-
I am in fine fettle, thank you for asking. But we should keep general chitchat in the Just Chat section or run the risk of being berated by a moderator (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-scared005.gif&hash=ee67f60739e92d860f916bf30a9f294b) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
oh yes, very true...
if I can go back on topic
Just to reiterate, anyone who makes a claim of any kind ought to give a resource proving it or else it has no credibility
-
no proof = no credibility
NSM has no credibility anyway - s/he wears his/her biases on his/her sleeve, and is known to fall for propaganda.
-
thus negative credibility?
-
I went on a mission once to find information on a certain dubious theory on the internet. There are probably those here who will remember this particular episode. It was to do with a theory proposed by a dodgy Nigerian scientist who claimed that "Doctor Beaver from Cambridge University has endorsed my theory".
I found lots of sites concerned with this theory, and its proposer, but also managed to track them all back to a single source. The person concerned had merely started multiple sites spouting the same rubbish so that he could say that there were many verifying his claims.
Largely as a result of that I now only pay any heed to information on "reputable" sites. So, when citations are given I am still dubious unless I know the source is reliable.
-
ok.
-
Which references would you consider as reputable?
-
Naturalnews is 1 of those anti-pharma, Natural Health fanatical sites. Nowhere in that article does it say how the information came to light.
Another article from that site is "How the FDA is Becoming a Drug Company: Consumer Safety and Access to Natural Health Options Threatened"
By the look of it, it's basically not much more than yet another conspiracy site.
-
Which references would you consider as reputable?
That's a good question which I shall address when I've made coffee.
-
conspiracy sites have no credibiity unless they can prove their claims
-
Naturalnews is 1 of those anti-pharma, Natural Health fanatical sites. Nowhere in that article does it say how the information came to light.
Another article from that site is "How the FDA is Becoming a Drug Company: Consumer Safety and Access to Natural Health Options Threatened"
By the look of it, it's basically not much more than yet another conspiracy site.
Journal of the American Medical Association here . too?
-
oh yes, very true...
if I can go back on topic
Just to reiterate, anyone who makes a claim of any kind ought to give a resource proving it or else it has no credibility
oh yes, very true...
if I can go back on topic
Just to reiterate, anyone who makes a claim of any kind ought to give a resource proving it or else it has no credibility
http://www.naturalnews.com/023074.html
"The discovery that drug companies have been ghostwriting scientific studies using in-house writers, then paying (bribing) doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the author of the article is making shockwaves across conventional medicine. This latest revelation of scientific fraud exposes a massive, widespread system of fraud involving not only the drug companies, but also hundreds of different peer-reviewed, "scientific" medical journals that have published these ghostwritten articles. This scam is the latest embarrassment to conventional medicine...."
or you can try ghost writing big pharma in google...loads of articles from reputable papers...
here is another source:-
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/12/12/grassley-probes-medical-ghostwriting-by-wyeth/
Sen. Charles Grassley, investigating instances of “medical ghostwriting,” has asked drugmaker Wyeth for information about whether it helped draft papers about the company’s hormone therapy products and recruited doctors to sign articles for medical journals.
grassley wyeth letter pdfGrassley, who has been
Grassley asks Wyeth for a list of all scientific reports or manuscripts prepared by DesignWrite since 1995. He also wants info on payments to DesignWrite as well as doctors whose names are published as authors of the studies.
In other words drugs are approved on ghost written articles by authors working for the company...and passed of as real doctors.
here is another one from the New York Times:-
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/big-pharma-gets-caught-ghostwriting/150328
"From the NYT comes the news that Merck flacks were the real authors of "dozens of research studies" on Vioxx that were then shopped around to name-brand physicians. ( WaPo reports as well, here .) Presumably, docs who agreed received some kind of compensation--even if it was just another publication, which is the currency of academic science--for adding their names to the papers and submitting them to journals for peer review and publication. You can read the source article from the Journal of the American Medical Association here .
What's the big deal? Well, for starters, there's the potential for conflict of interest when a drug manufacturer (or anyone else) writes up positive research results about a product in which they have a financial interest. Disclosing such interests is the usual "solution." In this case, there wasn't just non-disclosure; rather, there seem to have been purposeful steps to make it appear as though Merck wasn't involved. Moreover, from the standpoint of research ethics, it's not kosher for people to attach their names to papers they had no role in writing, or research they weren't involved in.
The news also raises the question of whether the research results reported are, in fact, valid and trustworthy. Journal articles are the primary way the medical community learns about...."
-
You didn't draw much attention to this bit from the article:
in New Jersey, Judge Jamie Happas, who is overseeing all hormone therapy litigation in that state, said in an opinion commenting on some of the same articles addressed by Senator Grassley: ‘There is no dispute that the articles were subject to a rigorous peer review process and were factually and medically sound.’
Or this:
Similarly, Judge William Wilson, overseeing the federal hormone therapy litigation, concluded that there was no evidence that Wyeth supported articles that we knew were false or misrepresented the science. He noted that plaintiff’s own expert witness conceded that she had engaged in the practice of working with pharmaceutical company on an article herself.
-
Back to the question asked of me.
There are some journals whose reputability is beyond question as they have, for many years, proved themselves honest. I would include Nature, New Scientist, and many professional body journals such as Psychology Today or the journal of the APA.
There are also newspapers such as The Times and The Independent in the UK that, in the main, publish good, honest copy.
Websites such as Space.com are also reliable.
The problem is that many less reliable organisations have very professional-looking websites and the articles are written in ways that mimic those of more reputable organisations. These are sometimes hard to spot at first glance and it is easy to be misled into believing that what is written there is indisputable fact. It is only when you start cross-checking that fallacies can come to light.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to cross-check everything so I take a somewhat cynical view of anything written on sites that I am not sure about.
-
I also share a very cynical view about resources. I do cross check everything, and I mean everything.
I am an unapologetic skeptic of most things conspiracy. At this stage, I do not believe any conspiracy theory- this is despite looking into them quite deeply.
The reason is simple, back when I was not a skeptic, I got burned and burned badly - to which I have both not recovered but remain weary.
-
Thanks - I had also sought it out for you.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090225/tuk-teen-dies-after-taking-acne-pills-dba1618.html
.
There's a news story that puts a very different angle on it than you decided to do. He suffered an acute reaction to a commonly prescribed drug, a bit like an allergy. As he had never taken the drug before, how could anyone have known that he would react like this? Should everyone be allergy tested prior to taking any common substance? Thousands of others take these drugs without this reaction.
It's nonsense to imply that the doctor should be punished - should parents be punished when they first discover their child has a peanut allergy? What if it leads to the child's death? By your logic, the parents would be to blame.
And what has him being Welsh got to do with it? This was a tradgedy, pure and simple, yet you have to bring xenophobia into it?
Shaun Jones a healthy 14 year old was killed by a doctors prescription for acne 5 days ago.
No, he wasn't. He died as a result of an unfortunate reaction to a very common prescription medication.
The doctor has been held blameless by the doctors council.This is a classic case of doctors protecting their own.
On account of him doing nothing wrong.
The medication came with no warnings that it could kill.
This particular packet came with no warnings leaflet - it certainly should have, but that has nothing to do with the doctor who prescribed it, and the parent could have questioned it at that point. As it happens, a list of the known side effects wouldn't have made ant difference.
Another unfortunate reason maybe that he Welsh and the Welsh people suffer discrimination and inbred bigotry from the English.
Offensive nonsense.
The medication called sebomin is worth $230 million in annual profit.
This may explain why there was no mainstream media publication and was confined to page 9 in a small paragraph.Clearly warnings had gone out to keep it buried.
Paranoid delusional nonsense.
Shaun Jones was a healthy rugby player, he was popular and fun loving.
He had his whole life ahead of him.
So? Tragic things happen to all sorts of people.
Yet he killed by a single tablet prescribed by his doctor who never bothered to check for side effects.
How do you know? Were you there at his consultation? Have you thoroughly interviewed the doctor involved? Is your paranoid delusion about pharma companies being evil leading you to conlude things that are not, in fact, true?
One doctor I spoke to said this was nothing and that more then 200000 people are killed every year in America but the drugs are just too profitable and the media and politicians have been bribed by the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.
He said they had been paid $20 billion last year.
Evidence please.
You may have noted how the House of Lords peers were involved in a "money to change the law" scandal.
Relevance please.
I feel very sorry for the family of Shaun Jones.To have a 14 year old son killed by a single doctors tablet...words fail me.
Finally, something we can agree on. I too feel sorry for the family in this tragic situation. I don't, however, seek to blame anyone.
I find it disturbing that you think the medical profession is above criticism and we should hide their dirty laundary and bury their mistakes.
Here is another of their mistakes:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/88711/Boy-dies-of-cancer-after-doc-told-grow-up-
A boy with cancer was dismissed as having mental issues after seeing his doctor 6 times when he had cancer.
Even though it was visable on his chest.A second doctor at the hospital failed also.His blood tests were dismissed.
Is this why we are paying these "doctors" £250000 a year for?
Maybe they are being rewarded for failure instead success just like bankers.
He is dead now but could have been treated and cured if the incompetant doctor had done his job for which he is paid a kings ransom.
We can only wait for the excuses you will come up with to excuse his incompetance.
-
I find it disturbing that you think the medical profession is above criticism and we should hide their dirty laundary and bury their mistakes.
Here is another of their mistakes:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/88711/Boy-dies-of-cancer-after-doc-told-grow-up-
A boy with cancer was dismissed as having mental issues after seeing his doctor 6 times when he had cancer.
Even though it was visable on his chest.A second doctor at the hospital failed also.His blood tests were dismissed.
Is this why we are paying these "doctors" £250000 a year for?
Maybe they are being rewarded for failure instead success just like bankers.
He is dead now but could have been treated and cured if the incompetant doctor had done his job for which he is paid a kings ransom.
We can only wait for the excuses you will come up with to excuse his incompetance.
Yes, that's a tragic mistake that should be looked into. I never said doctors were beyond reproach.
I also never said "the medical profession is above criticism and we should hide their dirty laundary and bury their mistakes" - you decided that is what I think. This says a lot more about you than it does about me.
You may also note that this situation bears no resemblance to the original story in this thread.
"Maybe they are being rewarded for failure instead success just like bankers." - More of your delusional offensive nonsense.
-
NSM - you can not dictate to people what they think.
Not everyone think in the same way as you, you have to accept that not everyone believes the same things that you, nor do people 'fit' a cast from your mindset.
Further, if people disagree with you, it does not mean at all that they are the 'enemy'.
I am sorry to say, your paranoid delusional rambling has resulted in you have absolutely no credibility with anyone here - this is not because of brainwashing, this is entirely due to your offensive and delusional ramblings.
To be honest, you come across as an online troll, deliberately and immaturely provoking responses to fulfill your addiction for attention and martyrism when you perceive that people are part of 'them'. (yes, I realise the irony of posting that statement).
I do not know nor care as to what caused you to be so distrusting - I would have cared if you were polite and demonstrated any sensibility.
-
I am sorry to say, your paranoid delusional rambling has resulted in you have absolutely no credibility with anyone here - this is not because of brainwashing, this is entirely due to your offensive and delusional ramblings.
To be honest, you come across as an online troll, deliberately and immaturely provoking responses to fulfill your addiction for attention and martyrism when you perceive that people are part of 'them'. (yes, I realise the irony of posting that statement).
Don't beat about the bush, be blunt! [:D]
-
I just wonder how much NSM thinks doctors would need to be paid to stop them making the odd mistake?
The problem is that they are human and, as such, prone to human failure.
-
NSM - you can not dictate to people what they think.
Not everyone think in the same way as you, you have to accept that not everyone believes the same things that you, nor do people 'fit' a cast from your mindset.
Further, if people disagree with you, it does not mean at all that they are the 'enemy'.
I am not dictating how you think.
That is being dictated already to you by the established entities around you.
Your failure to realize this makes you a co-operative pseudopod of these interests thus doing their bidding without realization and compounds your error.
This is called nested thinking.
I have not said you were an enemy.
I am always polite.
I am very sorry you cannot see the bigger picture.The wider perspective.
You are a unwitting victim of mendacity but you cannot help this as you are a product of your environment and vast effort would be required on your part to realize this.
-
You're talking bollocks. No, I'm not going to be polite because you have insulted everyone here, myself included.
You are delusional and paranoid (that's my professional opinion as a psychologist) and I would suggest you seek help rather than spouting your derogatory nonsense here. Had you, in the first instance, tried to state your case clearly and logically, citing informed sources, then maybe we would have more time for you. Instead you accused us of all sorts of demeaning rubbish - and even accused us of causing someone's death! Even so, we tried to reason with you and point out that you were incorrect in your assertions only to be met with a barrage of ill-informed bilge.
So do us all a favour. Run along and put your tin foil helmet back on to stop the aliens beaming rays into what in your case barely passes for a brain.
-
NSM - all you have are your own paranoid-delusionally biased ASSumptions - you are so far from the truth with regards to me.
You accused me of contributing to the death of my uncle - something that, to be blunt and honest, has me despising you as a person.
But, as your name says, you are a nobody, just some whack-job troll name on the screen. You'll twit this around to fit your own delusion, but who cares?
You have no influence nor authority in my life whatsoever.
No one here takes you seriously, no one at all and you did that to yourself. You are so brainwashed by the woo-woo factions that you can't see that you are a poster boy for what you, yet again, accuse me of.
So, go back to woo-woo land with your tin hat, nobody.
-
NobodySavedMe has now been banned. He had been warned some time ago that his conduct was innappropriate, yet he continued to be offensive.