 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / June 2007medication therapy?
Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? What an incredibly stupid, pointless question. pavane Why is asking about side-effects of medication stupid? > Why is asking about side-effects of medication stupid? It is stupid since the diagnosis, the medications, the dosages and the treatment processes were not mentioned. You know this. pavane Then ask the poster to be more specific. Chastising the way you do is just rude. > > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? > > What an incredibly stupid, pointless question. > > pavane It is stupid to you because obviously you never suffered from using any medication but believe this, some side effects have almost caused some people to come close to death. Maybe it was not even the side effects but the fact that the medication was not fit for that particular person or maybe an allergic reaction. Actually one lady in an earlier discussion was allergic to lactose and could not use most asthma medication. Guess what, how did you think she found out she was allergic to it? Of course if they see your reply they certainly would not think that this question is pointless and stupid. >> > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > allergic to it? Of course if they see your reply they certainly would > not think that this question is pointless and stupid. Repeating: It is stupid since the diagnosis, the medications, the dosages and the treatment processes were not mentioned. And specific to your comments, yes, I have gone into anaphylactic shock from a very common asthma/copd medication, discussed here previously. But you must state what you are talking about for the discussion to make any sense. Simply asking about harm from asthma meds is far too broad and undefined a question to have any meaningful response. What are you taking, or considering taking, why, from what kind of doctor based on what testing. Give some background for this hugely broad question. pavane pavane >> > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > allergic to it? Of course if they see your reply they certainly would > not think that this question is pointless and stupid. If you could be more specific about the medicines in question, then it would be possible to answer. Just about any medicine is appropriate for some people, and inappropriate for others, as well as interactive with other meds. All medicines have the potential for harm. Many of us have had severe side effects from asthma meds, but there is no way to predict that you will have the same reactions. The way in which you posed the question was too nebulous for anyone to provide a meaningful answer. If you have something specific in mind, please ask. ......... > If you could be more specific about the medicines in question, then it would > be possible to answer. Just about any medicine is appropriate for some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > provide a meaningful answer. If you have something specific in mind, please > ask. If, as seems likely, bronchodilators as the mainstay asthma drugs are meant, then they might well be implicated in the asthma epidemic. Medication for the Dr. Hahn/My Asthma Story approach is different. The good intensions of professionals and researchers on bronchodilators are simply not enough and drugs do not automatically do less harm than good in the long run. The epidemic is not explained, see "asthma Epidemic Increase Cause Unknown", Public Health Policy Advisory Board, 2002, http://www.phpab.org/asthma%20report/asthma.pdf, page 15: "There are no convincing explanations for this epidemic". Basically an attack of asthma can be interpreted as an attempt to activate upper chest breathing like a sprinter do to get maximum air into his lungs. But the asthmatic fails because he can't open up his airways like this. The view of asthma experts is quite different and supposes that the asthmatic type of airway narrowing is primary and not secondary i. e. not the result of some glitch in a mechanism used by a sprinter for maximum exertion. An argument for basically trying to help an asthmatic to manage to open up his airways is provided by yoga breathing techniques (Ramdev video on the Internet) showing somebody doing a healthy exercise with a strong superficial resemblance to an attack and acclaimed as being an asthma treatment. There is pronounced upper chest breathing and the shoulders are lifted as in an attack of asthma. Irrespectively of which view is correct, i. e. (a) helping an asthmatic to boot-strap himself and do what his body is (supposedly) trying to or (b) regarding his efforts at vigorous upper chest breathing as totally misguided, there surely ought to be some scientific research on the first possibility. So somebody interested in a drug-free approach has gotta develop a lot of initiative to workout a safe strategy The impasse here seems to be that research on breathing retraining has a completely different status to research on drugs, because trails on breathing exercise cannot be double blinded. Respectfully, Richard Friedel He marvelled at the fact that cats had two holes cut in their fur at precisely the spot where their eyes were. G. C. Lichtenberg > The impasse here seems to be that research on breathing retraining has > a completely different status to research on drugs, because trails on > breathing exercise cannot be double blinded. Respectfully, Richard > Friedel B.S. You can blind them in several ways. 1) Do sham breathing treatments or some other similar treatment such as relaxation techniques are yoga. 2) Don't blind the pts but use objective measures and blind the people taking the measurements. 3) Some elements of both. This idea that alternative treatments can't be proved (or by extension disproved) because they do not lend themselves to conventional research is just a bunch of sad excuses by people who can't or won't do the research.  Signature00doc > > The impasse here seems to be that research on breathing retraining has > > a completely different status to research on drugs, because trails on [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > 00doc This is surely not true. Where we seem to agree is that a doctor worth his salt should be able to see whether a civilized and not obviously flawed treatment is doing his patient any good or not. You may think that yoga (Ramdev's Bhastrika) is like chiro with the subluxations contradicting the anatomy of the nervous system. Bhastrika is rendered plausible by the work done on nitric oxide from the nose as a positive factor (gaseous hormone) in lung function. See http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/breathe_thro ugh_the_nose for a scientific explanation. My experience on this has been as follows. 1) Nose irrigation leads to freer breathing, most probably by making more nitric oxide (NO) from the nose available. 2) By directing the air upwards in the nose there is a feeling of localizing the point of action of the airflow, i. e. just what you have to do to tap the NO on offer. 3) Following Ramde's instructions to breathe upward into the chest where the lungs are, and forgeting about belly or diaphragmatic breathing (which is usually recommend in connection with asthma) for the exercise. 4) Feeling that this enables the lungs to take in a greater volume of air. 5) More particularly concentrating on opening up the lung airways, which seem to be chronically crumpled up in asthma. 6) Feeling that this type of breathing is extremely pleasant and just the opposite of asthmatic breathing. What do you think of this? Give me a call if you care to, 00498151744409 Regards, Richard Friedel He marvelled at the fact that cats had two holes cut in their fur at precisely the spot where their eyes were. G. C. Lichtenberg >> > The impasse here seems to be that research on breathing retraining has >> > a completely different status to research on drugs, because trails on [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > What do you think of this? I think you started by saying I was wrong and then blathered on for about 30 lines of text without ever addressing what I said. Signature00doc > >> "Richard Friedel" <s3e0...@mailin.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > -- > 00doc (On the question of blinding in trials of pt). Firstly it is a platitude and a matter of commonsense that a person administering a pill treatment in a clinical trial can be much more effectively or perfectly blinded in comparison with a pt instructor. Also it is not possible to stop the group in the placebo (or control) group from talking to the persons getting the real treatment so that they all know what is going on. We've had this all out with long time- wasting discussions on the Russian therapy stuff. Surely your blanket denial on any breath therapy being valuable for asthma shows the true-believer position of many docs on drug therapy for asthma. Why should they speak of "alternative" treatments with the innuendo that they are unscientific? The history of medicine highlights magnificent successes and dismal failures. Won't this process continue? So nobody needs to have all the facts on asthma at his fingertips to consider the merits of the Weitzberg (nitric oxide) and Ramdev approach. All he needs to remember is that asthma involves a failure to take a deep breath expanding the airways in the lungs to stop incipient narrowing caused by pollen etc. Weitzberg advises coordinating the routing of the airflow in the nose with reduction in asthma symptoms. Ramdev, whatever his reputation in other respects, shows that the failure to take a deep breathing can be trained away in an obvious manner, which he validates. The stance taken by doctors here shows that it is question of finances. Surely it unethical for a doctor to advise against a treatment in this way. Regards, Richard Friedel He marvelled at the fact that cats had two holes cut in their fur at precisely the spot where their eyes were. G. C. Lichtenberg See also http://www.cafeoflifepikespeak.com/Videos/Licensed%20To%20Pill.swf (with apologies to Billy Joel) >> >> "Richard Friedel" <s3e0...@mailin.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > administering a pill treatment in a clinical trial can be much more > effectively or perfectly blinded in comparison with a pt instructor. Not at all. If you give a sham treatment, say other exercises, then the person does not know if they are getting the real thing. > Also it is not possible to stop the group in the placebo (or control) > group from talking to the persons getting the real treatment so that > they all know what is going on. 1) Why can't you stop them? Who says the two groups will ever meet? 2) None of thepeople know who is getting the real treatment so who cares if they do meet. All they could determine is that they are not getting the same treatment > Surely your blanket denial on any breath therapy being valuable for > asthma shows the true-believer position of many docs on drug therapy > for asthma. I'm not making blanket statements other than to say that it is BS that these treatments cannot be scientifically studied. > Why should they speak of "alternative" treatments with the > innuendo that they are unscientific? I don't know exactly who "they" are or who is making what innuendo. All I'm asking is that people who claim that they have useful treatments be willing to submit them to testing rather than make excuses about how the system somehow supresses their ideas. if they wioll not then at least stop making unsupportable and obviously false excuses. > The history of medicine > highlights magnificent successes and dismal failures. Won't this > process continue? You are right on both accounts and I suspect that it will continue. > So nobody needs to have all the facts on asthma at his fingertips to > consider the merits of the Weitzberg (nitric oxide) and Ramdev > approach. This is a common argument made by people looking to confuse the issues and avoid close examination - if we don't know everything then we must know nothing. They then somehow compound it by going on to say that since we know nothing for some reason we must simply suspend rational throught and blindly accept what they are saying. Nobody says we have all the facts on asthma or that we need to. I don't ask for a detailed mechanism of action or proof of why things work - just some evidence that they do. If the practitioner claims a modest benefit then it might take a large study to demonstrate that benefit that would be impossible to do without significant funding and so impossible in many cases (not due to a scientific innability to study it bit for practical reasons). However, the large effects usually claimed should be easily demonstrated. > All he needs to remember is that asthma involves a failure > to take a deep breath expanding the airways in the lungs to stop > incipient narrowing caused by pollen etc. That is a theory that you, or any other proponent, are welcome to prove at any time. Since the ariway collapse seen in asthma typically takes place on exhalation I have my doubts. > Weitzberg advises > coordinating the routing of the airflow in the nose with reduction in > asthma symptoms. He can advise anythign he wants. If he wants others to give the same advise he wil have to prove his point. > Ramdev, whatever his reputation in other respects, > shows that the failure to take a deep breathing can be trained away in > an obvious manner, which he validates. I have no idea what is reputation is in other respects but you do not instill confidence with your comments. > The stance taken by doctors > here shows that it is question of finances. Not at all. I would get paid exactly the same no matter what treatment I advise. If I get better results then it would only be to my best interest. Luckily (for me) I am in absolutely no danger of curing all disease and running out of patients. > Surely it unethical for a > doctor to advise against a treatment in this way. I actually haven't advised against the treatments - just pointed out that there is no reason to advise for them. There is nothing unethical about failing to advise people to use treatments that have no evidence either for their basic science/ mechanisms or their clinical effects. Signature00doc > >> "Richard Friedel" <s3e0...@mailin.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 174 lines] > -- > 00doc Surely blinding in a drug trial and in a trial of physical therapy (i. e. in something implying a mind-body interaction) has a different meaning. Just what would be the value for practitioners of a pt trial if neither the person administering the treatment nor the tested person knew what was going on? Aren't you getting close to medical sophistry? To put the original point more bluntly. 1) Absent a convincing etiology doctors are comparatively speaking out of their depths on asthma. The cause of the epidemic is unknown (see "asthma Epidemic Increase Cause Unknown" des Public Health Policy Advisory Board, 2002, http://www.phpab.org/asthma%20report/asthma.pdf, Seite 15: "There are no convincing explanations for this epidemic.) 2) So treatment can only be empirical and accordingly drugs have no better ranking than yoga, both being "unproved" in the strict medical sense. 3) It is unethical to reject yoga breathing exercises by declaring them to be merely "complementary". Empiricism or treatment without a supporting theory should not mean exclusion of a treatment for the sake of doctors' finances in a particular instance. Regards, Richard Friedel >> >> "Richard Friedel" <s3e0...@mailin.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 212 lines] > person knew what was going on? Aren't you getting close to medical > sophistry? Not at all. You are either woefully ignorant of how science is conducted or are willfully being so in order to cling to your pet (for this week) author's unproved ideas. Obviously the person administering the treatment is not blinded. He (or she) knows what trreatment is being given. The patients obviously know what is being done for them as well. The patient is "blind" if they do not know whether they are getting the treatment that is proposed to be beneficial or some other treatment that is supposed to not be. The other half of the "double blinding", the researcher, is accomplished not be having the person doing the treatment being blind but by having the person doing the assessment being blind. > To put the original point more bluntly. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Advisory Board, 2002, http://www.phpab.org/asthma%20report/asthma.pdf, > Seite 15: "There are no convincing explanations for this epidemic.) That is true but it has absolutely no bearing on whether any particular treatment is effective. > 2) So treatment can only be empirical and accordingly drugs have no > better ranking than yoga, both being "unproved" in the strict medical > sense. This is the falacy that I mentioned in a previous post. Just because we don't understand all of the cause for asthma and very little of the reason for its increase does not mean we know nothing about the process. Knowledge is not an all or nothing proposition - there is a middle ground. Furthermore, gaps in our knowledge of the basic pathophysiology do not put unproved treatments on the same ground as proved ones. If anything, the less we know about the basic science the less able we are to predict outcomes based on theory and so the more dependant on outcomes data we are. I.e. you are arguing for more proof, not less. I'm not claiming meds are better than breathing treatments based on some understanding of basic science (although the meds at least do have a rationale suggested by it) . I am claiming that treatments, any treatments, that have shown benefits are better than those that haven't. > 3) It is unethical to reject yoga breathing exercises by declaring > them to be merely "complementary". I don't reject then as "merely complementary". I reject many of them (but not all) as having no evidence to support their proposed benefits. I would say the same if they were a pill without supporting evidence. > Empiricism or treatment without a > supporting theory should not mean exclusion of a treatment for the > sake of doctors' finances in a particular instance. I am not rejecting anything due to lack of a supporting theory. Conventional medicine accepts many treatments with either a complete or partial lack of understanding as to why they work. I am rejecting the notion that some treatments should be held to a different standard and are inherently untestable. Theories are nice but it is results that really matter. As for the finances - it makes no difference to me which treatment I prescribe. I've pointed this out many times and yet you continue to choose to ignore it. Signature00doc > >> "Richard Friedel" <s3e0...@mailin.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 247 lines] > > read more » To recap: Pills can be tested without the subjects or the persons administering the pills knowing whether a particular subject is getting the real pill or a dummy pill. Such tests are extremely important. Physical therapy can not be tested in this way. Doctors advise using bronchodilators not only for emergencies but also to generally reduce discomfort due to asthmatic airway constriction. Taking a deep breath will normally open up the airways, but an asthmatic has difficulty here. Just what ethical medical objection can there be to doing yoga breathing exercises as a preferable alternative to open up the airways by expert reverse (or paradox) breathing, see Ramdev video, bhastrika? The pathetic breathing tactics of an asthmatic in respiratory distress might well be an intelligent attempt of the body to break out and do healthy reverse breathing. What is wrong with this notion? In other words, why should not an asthmatic be supported in his attempts to breathe naturally (if you allow the begging question here) and not in a way figured out in orthodox but stalemated treatment concepts? This group happens to be called alt.asthma.support, not pharm.rep.ecstasy or even asthma.farce.forum. A redefinition of asthma as a chronic impairment in inspiring deeply would be in line with ongoing research. In my particular case of unmedicated asthma, nasal irrigation (to get enough endogenous nitric oxide) + breathing upwardly in the nose + authentic yoga breathing (Ramdev) seems to have turned off the sensitivity to pollen and to allergens in foods and also breathing difficulties of any sort. See the previously posted Swedish yoga stuff on http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/breathe_thro ugh_the_nose Regards, Richard Friedel 00498151744409 On May 31, 1:11 am, "00doc" <0...@comcast.net> wrote: To recap: "Pills can be tested without the subjects or the persons administering the pills knowing whether a particular subject is getting the real pill or a dummy pill. Such tests are extremely important. Physical therapy can not be tested in this way." To Recap: You are a buffoon. I don't believe for a second that you could truly be this stupid so you must be so horrified by the truth that you would prefer to feign stupidity than have to debate the truth. Of course, physical therapies can be tested thisd way and I have explain exactly how in this thread. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Doctors advise using bronchodilators not only for emergencies but also to generally reduce discomfort due to asthmatic airway constriction." You say "discomfort", I say ability to breath. Potato patato tomatoe tamatato..... Really Richard, surely if anyone thought my calling you a buffoon above was a bit harsh your now refering to asthma as an issue of comfort has convinced them that I was too kind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Taking a deep breath will normally open up the airways, but an asthmatic has difficulty here." Ah, yes. The cure for your asthma is to just take a deep breath. Why didn't I think of that? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Just what ethical medical objection can there be to doing yoga breathing exercises as a preferable alternative........" There is no objection, ethical or otherwise, to do them as an adjunct. It is you inisting that they are a peferable alternative to conventional medicine that is ethically suspect. What is amusing (read: buffoonish) to those of use who have been reading the group for more than a few weeks is how quickly you switch which guru now has the cure. Even if I decided to look the guy you would be on to another before the Google search came back. Signature00doc > On May 31, 1:11 am, "00doc" <0...@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > -- > 00doc Well, we seem to be generally in agreement about the likely value of yoga breathing exercises to overcome the asthmatic's inability to take a deep breath as a key symptom http://www.albionmonitor.com/11-14-95/asthma.html. But you hotly deny that yoga would be preferable. My personal experience of the Swedish plus yoga approach http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/breathe_thro ugh_the_nose is as follows: After suffering from a pollen sensitivity causing shortness of breath as long as I can remember, a) nasal irrigation with a special irrigation pot, see Google images for examples, b) and breathing "upwards in the nose" as recommended by Weitzberg, c) coupled with uninhibited upper chest breathing (authentic yoga) the sensitivity "went away" confirming that had been dependent on the condition of the nose. Your highly emphatic language to press your point seems generally a wasted opportunity failing any attempt by you as a medical doctor to disprove Weitzberg's to my mind highly plausible self-treatment approach. Regards, Richard Friedel "> > Well, we seem to be generally in agreement about the likely value of > yoga breathing exercises to overcome the asthmatic's inability to take > a deep breath as a key symptom > http://www.albionmonitor.com/11-14-95/asthma.html. > But you hotly deny that yoga would be preferable. That's because it has never been objectively demonstrated that it is. > My personal experience of the Swedish plus yoga approach > http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/breathe_thro ugh_the_nose [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > disprove Weitzberg's to my mind highly plausible self-treatment > approach. Regards, Richard Friedel There is nothing plausible about your asking someone to prove a negative. The burden is upon you to prove your assertions--no easy feat since they change quite frequently. > "> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's because it has never been objectively demonstrated that it is. See this link "We believe muscles around the breathing passages of both asthmatics and non-asthmatics react the same way to inhaled irritants -- they contract, closing up the air tubes," says Togias. "We suspect that non- asthmatics overcome this reaction by using deep breaths to relax the muscles and open up the air passages, and that asthmatics lack this ability." What better evidence do you need? > > My personal experience of the Swedish plus yoga approach > >http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/b... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The burden is upon you to prove your assertions--no easy feat since they > change quite frequently. That is quite true, but the Weitzberg theory of asthma being heavily influenced by nasal nitric oxide really works on me in the way noted. Couldn't you give it a try yourself? Give me a call on 00498151744409 to check my sincerity. Regards, Richard Friedel >> "> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What better evidence do you need? "We believe" and "We suspect" is considered to be evidence by you? You have a low threshold of gullibility. My sister-in-law is a yoga master who studied in India. While she obviously understands the benefits of yoga, she also views it as an adjunct, not a replacement for medication when it is required, nor does she think that "it would be preferable." >> > My personal experience of the Swedish plus yoga approach >> >http://www.scand-yoga.org/english/articles/issues_of_bindu/bindu_13/b... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> The burden is upon you to prove your assertions--no easy feat since they >> change quite frequently. > That is quite true, but the Weitzberg theory of asthma being heavily > influenced by nasal nitric oxide really works on me in the way > noted. Couldn't you give it a try yourself? Give me a call on > 00498151744409 to check my sincerity. Regards, Richard Friedel I have never doubted your sincerity, nor your desire to find strategies to improve your asthma. I just believe that for whatever reasons, you are anti-allopathic medicine. In that process, you have embraced and forsaken a variety of treatments. That's not unusual, because different approaches work for different people. What is unusual is that you continue to tout each new "discovery"--the theory ju jour--as the "way". What are we to make of your many discards that were also the "way"? For some, these kinds of relaxation and breathing techniques may well be sufficient. The problem that I have with it is the certitude with which you declare that they are "preferable" to meds, particularly when you have submitted such tepid "evidence" as the above citation. In that case, you have provided a hypothesis and annointed it as evidence. It's not the way science and critical thought are done. >> "> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What better evidence do you need? Was there evidence in that passage? Maybe that is the problem - you don't understand what is meant by evidence. I do happen to believe that asthma is more a question of degree than a yes or no question becuase everyone can be made to wheeze if given enough stimulus. However why some people wheeze more easily than others is really the question, isn't it? His theory about why most people don't regularly wheeze is the part that needs proof. Nobody questions your sincerity, Richard. It is your sanity that we wonder about. Signature00doc >> > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > allergic to it? Of course if they see your reply they certainly would > not think that this question is pointless and stupid. OK - now I'm confused. What is your purpose of posting? Are you truly seeking information or are you just trying to stir up a diatribe about the evils of meds? Signature00doc Actually it isn't such a "stupid" question. There are indeed medications out there that have the potential to kill. After the kill factor has been reached, the meds will eventually be pulled off of the market. It is a long painful process, but as I am finding out, it is the way that business is done. > > Have anyone suffered any harm from using medication for their asthma? > > What an incredibly stupid, pointless question. > > pavane |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.