add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is the idea i mentioned on the Bleeding Obvious one. I've decided to post it anyway.
When a drug is provided, it needs to have other ingredients added to make it useable, for instance lactose in pills and so forth. It's also often advantageous for it to be a particular colour. However, for
some reason these added ingredients often seem to be chosen from a list of compounds well-known to cause problems for large numbers of people, for example lactose, aspartame (i'm thinking PKU here, nothing controversial) or lanolin allergy.
My suggestion is that where a particular ingredient of this kind is used, it should be replaced by an alternative less likely to cause problems, but that the original preparation be maintained so that people likely to react to those other ingredients can still take the older version.
I have no idea why this isn't done. Economies of scale?
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
// Economies of scale? // |
|
| |
I remember hearing somewhere that the stuff In paracetamol that damages peoples liver in overdose is not the pain killer. And that they can make safe paracetamol pill. |
|
| |
Medecines today are not made to make people better, they are made to make money. |
|
| |
//less likely to cause problems// Like as not the
problematic compounds were believed innocuous
when first used, and the problems only became
apparent in the postmarketing period, when
larger numbers of less highly selected people were
exposed for longer periods of time than in trials. |
|
| |
If new "unlikely to cause problems" ingredients
were introduced, some of them would turn out
even worse than the ones we've got. Or, at least,
this is the kind of hyperconservative logic that's
applied in these cases. |
|
| |
When the "devil we know" is very well known, it's
preferred, not so much by the pharmaceutical
firms, as by the regulatory agencies, to the devil
we don't know. |
|
| |
[Simpleton], not only do i want that book but i'm even considering selling a kidney to buy it. |
|
| |
[19] you only have two kidneys, and ere long they'll
for sure publish a new edition. |
|
| |
The ownership and provenance of the kidney was not specified. |
|
| |
Yeah, i was thinking of growing one from stem cells or
nicking one from a snail. |
|
| |