enoch - the "cet" in Roxicet refers to acetaminophen, it's a combination drug of oxycodone and acetaminophen, generally in a 5/325 or 5/500 formulation. Although naming conventions are far from standard, "cet" usually indicates acetaminophen (as in Percocet, Darvocet, and Ultracet), while "dan" refers to aspirin (as in Percodan and Endodan). I've seen both parts of ibuprofen used in naming (Ibudone, Vicoprofen).

The pill bottle shown in the video (and the drug you're referring to) is Roxicodone, a brand name oxycodone without the non-narcotic partner, in a 5, 15 or 30mg dose.

With all that out of the way, this is a problem that's very personal to me as well - from a different perspective. I'm a dentist, so narcotic pain medications are an essential tool in treating my patients, but my responsibility to avoid feeding or cultivating a narcotic addiction is never far from my mind.
It's an expected part of the job, but it's always incredibly frustrating when you discover a patient has lied or withheld information from you to score narcotics. I've had pharmacies call me to tell me that the patient I'd just given an Rx for 24 Norco 5's had received an Rx for 120 Vicodin a week prior from a pain management clinic, or worse, that they'd recently filled an Rx for a month of Suboxone, a methadone alternative (and a neat one at that, if you're into that sort of thing). In other cases, I'll find out that a patient filled the prescription for pain medication, but not the antibiotic that will actually address the root cause of the problem and provide more definitive relief.
As a result, I tend to be somewhat reserved when prescribing narcotics, leaning heavily on OTC ibuprofen (alone or in combination with acetaminophen).
At the same time, I have an obligation to minimize my patient's pain, so it's a difficult balance when someone's undergone treatment that I know poses a significant likelihood of post-operative pain, or when a patient cannot receive treatment immediately for a likely painful condition. I don't want to be responsible for one of my patients developing an addiction to narcotic pain medications (or muscle relaxants) but at the same time I don't want my patients to suffer through pain that could possibly be relieved.

I appreciate that there's also a delicate balance between patient privacy and provider privilege, but I can't dismiss the benefits of some recent programs that track narcotic prescriptions at the state level, and some insurance providers will send letters to practitioners advising them of potential drug interactions or overdose\abuse risks based on Rx's filed.

One of the biggest problems with all this is that it doesn't just hurt those who are addicted. Because doctors might be hesitant to prescribe narcotics due to the risk of abuse, other people are going to suffer through pain that could have been relieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

Treatment

Treatment is often only recommended for people with serious health problems, because the disease is most serious when one's immune system is weak.

Acute
Medications that are prescribed for acute Toxoplasmosis are:
* Pyrimethamine — an antimalarial medication.
* Sulfadiazine — an antibiotic used in combination with pyrimethamine to treat toxoplasmosis.
* clindamycin — an antibiotic. This is used most often for people with HIV/AIDS.
* spiramycin — another antibiotic. This is used most often for pregnant women to prevent the infection of their child.
(Other antibiotics such as minocycline have seen some use as a salvage therapy).

Latent

In people with latent toxoplasmosis, the cysts are immune to these treatments, as the antibiotics do not reach the bradyzoites in sufficient concentration.
Medications that are prescribed for latent Toxoplasmosis are:
* atovaquone — an antibiotic that has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts inside AIDS patients. [13]
* clindamycin — an antibiotic which, in combination with atovaquone, seemed to optimally kill cysts in mice.[14]

However, in latent infections successful treatment is not guaranteed, and some subspecies exhibit resistance.

Quite good, although at the beginning... all viruses are resistant to antibiotics... don't do a damn thing... antivirals aren't all that effective either.

I upvoted this on a rush and now after watching it completely, I regret it. I thought this clip was of ken miller talking about antibiotic resistance and the title misled me so I quickly upvoted and bookmarked for later. The actual title on the youtube account is 'is antibiotic resistance evidence for evolution?' which changes the whole tone of the video.
The two other scientists that speak are intelligent design supporters, hence their shitty conclusions.

*downvote (if I could reverse it)

also this clip just shows the one reaction to antibiotics which effectively wipe out 99% of bacteria where as natural enviroment things only wipe out small sections and the survivors are not necessarily survivors that had to have a fult of some kind to suvive whatever it was that killed a part of the populatoin,

seems bezar to use this one example as an argument against evolution/macro evalutoin, in a wiled situation if the entrie environment was treated with antibiotics then all the competitive cells would then die and the reproduction speed trade off would not matter because there would not be the compatitoin for it to matter.

manual lymph drainage is, as well as massage therapy, is considered more "alternative medicine" or "complimentary medicine" which is growing more widely accepted by western medicine... im also trained as a mammography tech and my hospital hosts monthly "complimentary medicine" seminars for employees. there are of course contraindications, such as chemo or if youre on a heavy dose of antibiotics, massage therapist are trained to know such contraindications and how to safely deal with them and this video assumes you are a healthy human being.

there is alot of nonsense spewed under the title of alternative medicine; light therapy, color therapy, rieki, quantum touch, etc. it gives us all a bad name as far im concerned. massage theory (minus all the vibrational medicince nonsense) is rooted in an understanding of physiology. im concerned with how the muscles, and all the cells and systems within your body function and work together. manual lymph drainage is alot of common sense. though i cant find any sort of major medical literature about it online. chiropractors will attest to it. however, many people consider them questionable medical professionals as well. i know several oncologists and oncology nurses who believe in its benefits. and cancer treatment centers who will prescribe it.

anyhow, its always good to flush your body of toxins, and lymphnodes are where toxins live.

massage has also proven to reduce scar tissue and improve muscle tone and circulation, breast massage is great post cosmetic breast surgery.

oh, furthermore, my current theory for why the mainstream medical community is reluctant to fully embrace massage therapy is because of all the nonsense "bodywork" junk that is not rooted in the science of physiology. and for a long time it has been more profitable to prescribe medication and treat the symptom rather than to prescribe prevention and treat the human.... thats slowly changing.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm upvoting because it has caused me to look up lymphatic drainage.
And it would seem to be something that is always talked about with the terms "which is believed by proponents" and "according to proponents".
So, therefore does not seem to have core medical backup with it.
Also, it seems that it may actually be dangerous in cases where a patient has cancer as you may be pushing the cancer cells through the body rather than them possibly being killed off by the lymph nodes. And also, it would seem, if you're getting chemo, it might be a bad idea as it pushes it through too quickly.
Or something.
I tend to like seeing a real medical practitioner come out with 'yeah, it works' or 'as far as has been ascertained it's at least harmless'.
So... yeah.
Plus it looks like she's trying to twist her boob off.
Oh... and they are spectacular.

We talked about female circumcision in one of my classes earlier this year... the teacher read part of a memoir from a girl raised in some African tribe who went through her circumcision at the age of five. Just listening to the story made me sick to my stomach.

- The practice is never done by a doctor. It's usually performed by a medicinewoman of sorts, who carries her dirty, rusted, bloody, dull razor blade with her from town to town. The "patient" is given no anesthetic. In the case of the little girl we read about, her mother put a gag in her mouth and tied it behind her head. Then she sat there and watched her daughter nearly die of blood loss. The girl slipped in and out of consciousness for three days.

Actually, I just found a site with some interesting statistics. It says that in Egypt, only 0.3% of these surgeries are done in hospitals. Nearly 80% are done in the home.

Path.org tells us "The highest maternal and infant mortality rates are in FGM-practicing regions. The actual number of girls who die as a result of FGM [female genital mutilation] is not known. However, in areas in the Sudan where antibiotics are not available, it is estimated that one-third of the girls undergoing FGM will die. Conservative estimates suggest that more than one million women in Centrafrican Republic (CAR), Egypt, and Eritrea, the only countries where such data is available, experienced adverse health effects from FGM. One quarter of women in CAR and 1/5 of women in Eritrea reported FGM-related complications. Where medical facilities are ill-equipped, emergencies arising from the practice cannot be treated. Thus, a child who develops uncontrolled bleeding or infection after FGM may die within hours."

It's disgusting, and as much as I value the religious or cultural beliefs of others, this should be outlawed. It's akin to torture, and women suffer life-long effects.

>> ^imstellar28:
^I have never once argued for or supported anarcho-capitalism. It drives me nuts when people associate capitalism with anarchy. I am as strongly against anarchy as I am socialism.
Mainstream economists disagree with me like the mainstream disagrees with me that the earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. Keynesian economics holds about the same weight as intelligent design in my book. It is a completely unsupported "theory", and is facing an intense amount of contradictory evidence, yet it still persists.
Fraud is illegal in this country right? I am charging him with 300,000,000 counts of fraud. Isn't that enough to put someone away for life? I am also charging him with treason. Isn't that enough to warrant the death penalty? I was giving the rest of the "mainstream" the benefit of the doubt. If you can prove they are familiar with Austrian theory, then its going to be a long day at the noose. I am positive this is not true in most economic programs in the country. There are less than a dozen Austrian programs in the country and 25 years ago there were less than a dozen prominent Austrian economists in the world.
Advocating Keynesian ideas when you are versed with the Austrians is like trying to save a dying man with leeches and voodoo when you are versed in germ theory and have antibiotics in your back pocket. Greenspan is the moral equivalent of an atheist who is the pope of a church leading an inquisition.


Quit pretending that pure capitalism has been proven better by the Austrian school, without actually supplying any of that so-called evidence.

Quit pretending you know Greenspan's inner thoughts. The most likely explanation is that he changed his mind about Objectivism and Austrian economics because the evidence against them outweighs the evidence in their favor.

Give ONE example of a country that has brought its GDP (PPP) per capita to current U.S. or European levels without depending on central bank fiat currency for liquidity. All the gold and all the Oil in existence is not enough to provide an adequate amount of currency. The total value of all gold ever mined ($4.3 trillion) is less than 1/15 of the world's GDP.

>> ^chilaxe:
^If your answer to every problem is to reduce government to a size at which it doesn't matter much anymore, it seems fair to characterize that as greater anarcho-capitalism, which is not the same as anarchy.
You're arguing against mainstream consensus in an entire academic discipline, so if you're going to make creationism accusations, you're pointing them in the wrong direction
Honestly, rein in some of your more extreme tendencies and you'll have more luck convincing other free-market proponents, such as myself. If Austrian school economists are unable to figure out how to make their viewpoint mainstream in the marketplace of ideas, does that mean the marketplace is right to keep them on the fringe?


i want a public military, police force, legal system, and fire department which is clearly incompatible with anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. you're making an assumption that i'm trying to convince others. i'm not. i'm berating what i think is false and advocating what i think is true.

don't expect me to apologize for my "extremism" with regards to human rights. you either believe human beings have unalienable rights or you don't. yes, you are hold a view closer to mine than most, but you still haven't fully cured the disease of collectivism and guess what happens when you don't finish your antibiotics?

^I have never once argued for or supported anarcho-capitalism. It drives me nuts when people associate capitalism with anarchy. I am as strongly against anarchy as I am socialism.

Mainstream economists disagree with me like the mainstream disagrees with me that the earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. Keynesian economics holds about the same weight as intelligent design in my book. It is a completely unsupported "theory", and is facing an intense amount of contradictory evidence, yet it still persists.

Fraud is illegal in this country right? I am charging him with 300,000,000 counts of fraud. Isn't that enough to put someone away for life? I am also charging him with treason. Isn't that enough to warrant the death penalty? I was giving the rest of the "mainstream" the benefit of the doubt. If you can prove they are familiar with Austrian theory, then its going to be a long day at the noose. I am positive this is not true in most economic programs in the country. There are less than a dozen Austrian programs in the country and 25 years ago there were less than a dozen prominent Austrian economists in the world.

Advocating Keynesian ideas when you are versed with the Austrians is like trying to save a dying man with leeches and voodoo when you are versed in germ theory and have antibiotics in your back pocket. Greenspan is the moral equivalent of an atheist who is the pope of a church leading an inquisition.

>> ^imstellar28:
Prior to FDA regulation, the average time to market of a drug was 18 months and the average cost was $500,000. 10 years later, the average time to market was 8 years and the average cost was $8,000,000. If you would like to see what your life would be like without the FDA, take the cost of your last prescription drug and divide it by 100. Your $30 a month birth control would be $0.30. Your $50 antibiotics would be $0.50. Your grandmothers $1000 heart medicine would be $10.
Yes, the FDA has prevented some dangerous drugs to market, but how many life-saving drugs could have been made available to dying patients if they were released 6.5 year sooner? How many tens of thousands of lives were lost waiting for drugs to be approved? You don't hear about their class action lawsuits because they are all ghosts.


I'm pretty certain most people would say that paying 100x the price for the drug is worth preventing the taking of a human life. If I (or my grandmother) has to pay $990 to relatively ensure that someone else--or even my grandmother herself--doesn't drop dead from taking the drug, we can both live with that cost. By the way, most of my grandmother's drugs are covered by Medicaid/Medicare which also ensures that she never pays that $990 but a minor co-payment instead.

You'd have to be pretty inhuman to bitch about how expensive drugs are and how much better off we'd be if we'd just led people die from the experimental drugs and figure out which ones are safe that way.

As far as drugs that are slow to get to market go, if you really want to try experimental drugs that badly you can go sign up for the clinical trials. But a lot of people wouldn't take the risk even if given the chance to participate. The number of willing risk-takers is probably much lower than "tens of thousands." Except for people with the most dire terminal illnesses, waiting a few years to make sure the drug is safe isn't going to hurt anybody.

And by the way, do you know what the failure rate in drug testing is? According to an article I read about a Japanese company developing new drugs here in the U.S., a new drug has maybe a 1 in 10,000 chance to make it to human trials and a close to 1 in 1,000,000 chance of getting through the human trials without unacceptable side effects being discovered (or the trials showing the drug doesn't actually work as advertised). I'd much rather have the FDA keeping those 999,999 potential dangerous/useless drugs off the market than having to have me or my doctor pick through all those choices whenever I get sick.

Prior to FDA regulation, the average time to market of a drug was 18 months and the average cost was $500,000. 10 years later, the average time to market was 8 years and the average cost was $8,000,000. If you would like to see what your life would be like without the FDA, take the cost of your last prescription drug and divide it by 100. Your $30 a month birth control would be $0.30. Your $50 antibiotics would be $0.50. Your grandmothers $1000 heart medicine would be $10.

Yes, the FDA has prevented some dangerous drugs to market, but how many life-saving drugs could have been made available to dying patients if they were released 6.5 year sooner? How many tens of thousands of lives were lost waiting for drugs to be approved? You don't hear about their class action lawsuits because they are all ghosts.

I try to stay out of political converstations, and by no means am I a mcCain supporter....but here, he is absolutely right. He isn't talking about people who need genuine medical care here, he is talking about the other 98% of cases that come into the emergency room. I work in an emergency room full time, it is the only part of the hospital I work in. My job is to create the account which generates the bill, which means I type in the patient's complaints then do all the proper insurance coding, as well as going to see the patient to get consent forms signed. 98% of of people that come into the emergency room come in for things that aren't even remotely emergent (Back pain x6 years, sore throat, cough, fever, knee pain, upset stomach). People who don't have insurance, and know that they have to pay a regular doctor upfront. So they come in and get seen and all the need is an antibiotic. That's $500 (Yes, five hundred dollars) they will never pay. A minute clinic could get them their needed antibiotics for 50 bucks. Also, the majority of people that abuse emergency services (Drug seekers, etc.) are medicaid patients (medicaid is GROSSLY abused. It is unreal). These are costs that you and I pay in our insurance premiums, and the reason why hospitals have to raise prices. We collect about 10 cents for every dollar that a self-pay patient owes us. So in this case, yes, I do agree with McCain (and remember, he is NOT talking about real emergencies here)

dude, go and try being a war photographer. see how much work you get done if you start to get mixed up in the events instead of documenting them.

it's so much more complex an issue than "man what a cunt why doesn't he put down the camera".

as for the motive that you will get on the cover of a magazine and get some money, well thank fuck they have a motive, we need the photos. I for one don't find international fame and riches a good enough reason to walk into a conflict without a gun, but if you do, then please, go for it. we need the pictures.

and as for "in this clip nachtwey only photographs people in hospital" !!!!! you retard, you think you just saw his whole career in one youtube video? it's not even the full documentary. And why doesn't he stay and dedicate his life to raising money for the hospital? Why didn't he take a bunch of antibiotics with him? Cunt!

He has photographed people who he could have given a year's wages with a couple of dollars, and he could have taught their kids to read, but he didn't, he just took photos and fucked off like a cunt, didn't he.

You only have to help people if they are on the floor bleeding, yeah? If they are mining poisonous rocks then you don't have to help them. If they are women in an unjust war you help, but bleeding terrorists you don't help? Go on, think this through and see where you get.

You just consume the war photography and call war photographers cunts. Nice one. Way to be all morally superior.