Refused access to medical specialist without painkillers

[JFKvsNixon]

No. Is that at all relevant?

 

As it is, no one can prove either 1. it'll make things better, or 2. it'll make things worse.

 

That's why I'm wanting to see a specialist who can make a start on the diagnosis........

 

 

 

OK. I suspect otherwise.

 

There have been plenty of clinical trials that do confirm that the painkillers can reduce the inflammation, which in turn has cured people of the pain that you've been getting.

 

This is why the GP has suggested this form of treatment for you, now if this doesn't work, then maybe physiotherapy may help to alleviate the problem, then again if this doesn't work then a referral to a specialist would be appropriate.

 

This is how the problem is worked through, it's not perfect but you have to consider that perfect medical health care would probably take an infinite amount of money to achieve.

 

If everybody gets to see a specialist for their relevant problems straight away, due to a limited amount of specialists the people with urgent problems would suffer due to a massive rise in waiting lists to see a specialist, who then would probably suggest to you that you start on a course of medication to reduce the inflammation.

 

I am also curious, why is a diagnosis so important to you?

[margarete]

JFKvsNixon wrote: "There have been plenty of clinical trials that do confirm that the painkillers can reduce the inflammation, which in turn has cured people of the pain that you've been getting."

 

With regard to clinical trials, readers may find this blogpost of interest:

 

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/09/26/medical-journals-information-laundering-big-pharma/

 

In particular, perhaps, read in it what Dr Marcia Angell has to say. (She was editor of The New England Journal of Medicines for over 20 years.)

 

I also suggest http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news/business/pharmaceuticals-need-clinical-trial-regulation-$443564.htm gives food for thought. (Yes, I do know it is from 2006, but little has changed since then.)

 

Here is an article from 2010: http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/11/medical-journals-have-their-own-conflicts-of-interest/

 

There is an increasing concern among many health commentators about the over-prescribing and over-consumption of painkillers in our drug-oriented culture.

[JFKvsNixon]

"There have been plenty of clinical trials that do confirm that the painkillers can reduce the inflammation, which in turn has cured people of the pain that you've been getting."

 

With regard to clinical trials, readers may find this blogpost of interest:

 

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/09/26/medical-journals-information-laundering-big-pharma/

 

In particular, perhaps, read in it what Dr Marcia Angell has to say. (She was editor of The New England Journal of Medicines for over 20 years.)

 

I also suggest http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news/business/pharmaceuticals-need-clinical-trial-regulation-$443564.htm gives food for thought. (Yes, I do know it is from 2006, but little has changed since then.)

 

Here is an article from 2010: http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/11/medical-journals-have-their-own-conflicts-of-interest/

 

There is an increasing concern among many health commentators about the over-prescribing and over-consumption of painkillers in our drug-oriented culture.

 

It is very easy to cherry pick articles from the internet to back up any point of view, but it proves very little. To understand evidence based medicine you need to carry out a thorough review of the evidence which would have guided the GP's decision.

 

It's important to note that the drugs would have been prescribed due to their anti-inflammatory properties, rather than just handed out as painkillers in the hope that the pain will disappear.

 

There is also a concern for the lack of understanding of science that many health commentators have, which lead to unfounded scares such as the MMR fiasco. Ben Goldacre's book - Bad Science addresses this matter succinctly.

[Cyclone]

Big pharma is not pushing ibuprofen, it's out of patent and there is no profit to be made.

If studies indicate that NSAIDs reduce inflammation and in many cases allow the body to heal more effectively then there is no reason to doubt such studies. (There's an awful lot of anecdotal evidence as well of course).

 

If you merely want to suggest that peer reviewed medical studies cannot be trusted then what evidence do you suggest someone should look at when their GP tells them that NSAIDs should be tried as a treatment for leg pain?

[margarete]

"There is also a concern for the lack of understanding of science that many health commentators have, which lead to unfounded scares such as the MMR fiasco. Ben Goldacre's book - Bad Science addresses this matter succinctly."

 

Funny you should mention Ben Goldacre. - It's only 3 days since he was on the Radio 4 Today programme inveighing against the deficiencies of drug trials. - Maybe you missed it.

[margarete]

"If you merely want to suggest that peer reviewed medical studies cannot be trusted then what evidence do you suggest someone should look at when their GP tells them that NSAIDs should be tried as a treatment for leg pain? "

 

I don't think I'd be suggesting any evidence the OP should look for, because the OP has made it extremely clear that he is not asking for such suggestions. - Maybe you would like to remind yourself what he wants by reading his OP.

[JFKvsNixon]

"There is also a concern for the lack of understanding of science that many health commentators have, which lead to unfounded scares such as the MMR fiasco. Ben Goldacre's book - Bad Science addresses this matter succinctly."

 

Funny you should mention Ben Goldacre. - It's only 3 days since he was on the Radio 4 Today programme inveighing against the deficiencies of drug trials. - Maybe you missed it.

 

I guess you're making the mistake of assuming that I am on one side or the other regarding big pharma! When they do good they should be applauded, when they do bad they should be criticised, that is my position.

 

Anyway, Ben Goldacre wasn't talking about the deficiencies of all drug trials, just of poorly run ones that draw conclusions that isn't reflected in the data that they create.

 

For example, comparing the trial medication with the competitors at only half their recommended dose or given orally instead of intravenously. It's for this reason that he argues that an understanding of science is required to interpret this data, rather than ill informed people doing a quick 15 minute internet search.

[JFKvsNixon]

"If you merely want to suggest that peer reviewed medical studies cannot be trusted then what evidence do you suggest someone should look at when their GP tells them that NSAIDs should be tried as a treatment for leg pain? "

 

I don't think I'd be suggesting any evidence the OP should look for, because the OP has made it extremely clear that he is not asking for such suggestions. - Maybe you would like to remind yourself what he wants by reading his OP.

 

I'd read between the lines, I think the the OP wants his leg to get better. Do you believe this assumption to be wrong?

[onewheeldave]

"If you merely want to suggest that peer reviewed medical studies cannot be trusted then what evidence do you suggest someone should look at when their GP tells them that NSAIDs should be tried as a treatment for leg pain? "

 

I don't think I'd be suggesting any evidence the OP should look for, because the OP has made it extremely clear that he is not asking for such suggestions. - Maybe you would like to remind yourself what he wants by reading his OP.

 

Yes- from the OPs perspective (i.e. me), Margarete has pretty much nailed it there- thanks margarete

[onewheeldave]

I'd read between the lines, I think the the OP wants his leg to get better. Do you believe this assumption to be wrong?

 

No- Margarete was spot on- my aim with this thread was to get info regarding the bypassing of troublesome GPs and getting to see a specialist.