What I object to is the idiotic effort being undertaken by Obama & the Democrats to ram this bill through without reading it and without testing it.

That's something I can agree with, Obamas health care package is crap. I get riled up when people start spouting misinformation about the Canadian one, and then use that as an example as why not to use Public Health Care.

Yes, and they’d cover afterwards. As I said before, I had a family member with cancer who underwent over a half MILLION in treatment. Your condition was chump change by comparison. She’s still covered by the same insurance. That year I paid a total of $5K out of pocket. In other years after the treatment I’ve paid as little as a few hundred. She’s had emergency treatments for other issues several times, and we’ve never once been turned away, told to come back later, or asked to ‘wait’ for approval. I fully expect that the great medical care we received in the AMERICAN (gasp!) system would change under a government plan, and she’d probably have died twice over.

If you want to play, I'm more sick than you, that's fine. But, if it were the same type of cancer and operation etc. I doubt that OHIP paid more than you. That's still more than the parking and pharmacy bill I paid. I'll say again, that if you need something to be treated in Canada, you will get treated right away. Everyone brings up the hip replacement surgery. Look at the province that it's coming from, not the national median wait time, then look at the fact it's a hip! If that wonky hip was causing life threatening situations, then you'd be wheeled into the operating room asap! I hope your family member is doing well and cancer free. I'm glad that hearing all the stories about costs in the US system, you guys got through, by the sounds of it, very well.

Everyone gets treated in Canada, you can even choose to go private health care, if you want. Though, there has been a bad run of doctors breaking the laws doing that =\ Like I said before, there are problems with a lot of the provincial systems. Those points are so glaring, that it needs to change, but those aren't the ones that are being propped up in the US. That's where I have to stand up and fight against it, because it's simply not true. Honestly, if they won't to downplay the systems we have, fine. Just use the facts about the stuff that doesn't work up here, don't make things up or cherry pick stats to prove your point. Imo, the Canadian system is still better than the US one, hands down.

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.

>> ^burdturgler:
Making fun of people who "believe" in homeopathy feels like disinformation to me. Turn them all into loons so that no one demands alternatives. Most drugs are derivatives of plants, herbs, trees etc. They were all "homeopathic" at one point. If he said "isolate the salicylic acid from the bark of a willow tree" that would sound funny too. Unfortunately now it takes upwards of a billion dollars to get something through the FDA. I don't know what that answer is, we can't have people selling dangerous and ineffective crap, but that doesn't mean that everything "homeopathic" doesn't work.


You're talking about Naturopathy... herbs have effects, yes... it is plausible.

The thing about Homeopathy though, is that if it's truly homeopathic according to the rules set down when it was invented... there really is no way it could work. Any active ingredients are diluted to the point that there is only water left.

Some products are labeled homeopathic, but actually have enough drugs in there to still do something. The only difference, then, between these falsely-labeled homeopathic treatments, herbal remedies, and the drugs you get from your pharmacy is that the homeopathic treatments and herbs are "alternative" and therefore, not regulated for safety by the FDA. Given the choice, I would go with the mainstream drugs which have been tested more thoroughly.

Zicam users recently fell afoul of a dearth of safety testing. Zicam was falsely labeled homeopathic, but it actually had measurable levels of zinc in it. People shot it up their nose and lost their sense of smell.

Save Big! Cialic10 + Viagrc10 =$69.99, Cialic60 =$198.40, Viagrc120 =$230.12 + FREE Pills, Ship to all countries

*** Canadian 0nline Pharmacy & Drugstore ***

Since 2001 Canadian 0nline Pharmacy has developed its reputation as one of the most trusted and respected 0nline pharmacies. Our fully accredited Canadian pharmacy and international pharmacies fill prescriptions and provide other medications at substantial discounts to what you will pay normally. WeOffer rigorous quality control to the extent that we employ full-time licensed physicians alongside our pharmacists to oversee and review our industry-leading standards.

Viagrc10x100mg + Cialic10x20mg = $69.99 (+ 4 free viagr/cailis pills)
Cialic60x20mg = $198.40 (+ 4 free viagr/cailis pills)
Viagrc120x100mg = $230.12 (+ 4 free viagr/cailis pills & Free Delivery)

The Canadian 0nline Pharmacy Benefits:

1. More than 500 brands meds to choose from
2. LowestPrice Guaranteed. We will meet or beat the shipped prices of any PharmacyChecker and CIPA approved pharmacy.
3. Savings of up to 90% on common prescriptionsDrugs and OTC drugs.
4. 100% Privacy Protected! (Nobody will know what pills you purcahsed with us)
5. Discreet packaging (bottle without label on it to protect your privacy)
6. Shipping insurance to ensure you will recieve your order on time
7. Various payment methods to ease your purcahse: Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Jcb, Diner, eCheck
8. Fully licensed PharmacyChecker approved pharmacy.
9. Physicians on staff assisting with quality control.

you are freely to choose what pills u like for the FREE PILLs that come with every order

View our Mega Pharmacy Store by clicking below links

>> ^ShakaUVM:
I think drug legalization is a bloody stupid idea.


Drugs are already legal, alcohol is a drug, nicotine is a drug, caffeine is a drug. There's a whole pharmacy of drugs that are legal if you get a doctors consent. There are no real scientific reasons why pot should be illegal compared to the other legal drugs we have.

Gateway drug theory is retarded. I live in the Netherlands and I can get my weed in a shop. Therefor I don't know any dealers, so it is much harder to score other drugs. A few places in the Netherlands kicked out the coffeeshops and dealers came to the streets, they also carry harder drugs and don't mind to push them.

I say all drugs should be legal. Prohibition has never worked and will never work. As long as you educate people on the drugs and provide them safely, people have to take their own responsibility, otherwise there is no free society. I'm not saying you should be able to get your drugs in the supermarket. But think along the lines of a recreational pharmacy that provides warnings and side effects leaflets like with any drug.

Another example from the Netherlands is with heroin prescription. The long term homeless addicts in my city have been given their drugs freely and have been provided with a place to stay. The program is so successful that they had to close wards because so many addicts had quit. Most addicts nowadays are the really old people who have been using it most of their lives, we are currently planning retirement homes for the addicts.

^ The reason it's covered is because the owner of the building doesn't want it to get vandalized. A Banksy piece is worth A LOT of money.

Of course, it should not be completely legalized for everyone. There should be an age limit like with alcohol: ~16-18 could be the limit. Marijuana and cigarettes should be equals, such that both have to be picked up at a pharmacy (jump through a few hoops to get it) and like with alcohol, you should not be able to operate a vehicle while intoxicated, obviously.

I have no interest in doing marijuana (my mind is slow enough as it is, thank you), but the witch hunt that's going on is just foolish. Cigarettes are equally dangerous to your health if not more so, because of the much higher amount that is smoked.

"That is the most dangerous thing I have ever seen..."

He obviously has never see shotgun wielding geriatrics in their electric wheelchairs trying to be first in line at the pharmacy. Scary!

A big part of the problem is the almost universal belief that everything should be as cheap as possible, and food the cheapest of all. My god, food keeps you alive, you are literally made of the stuff you eat, and yet you seek out the cheapest possible sources? SUVs are only getting cheap because people can't afford to fill the tanks anymore, but before that people would buy a big-ass truck (for two to three times the cost of a perfectly nice car) to haul their not coincidentally big-asses around from one drive through "restaurant" to the next, with stops in-between for the drive-through bank, and drive through pharmacy (cholesterol pills, naturally). It is amazing with all the knowledge and intelligence around that this system makes sense to anyone, much less the majority.

The excellent book "Rule the Web" has a tip on this. They recommend a couple of sites-

http://pharmacychecker.com/ : updated list of highly rated pharmacies. They say kwikmed.com gets good ratings - http://pharmacychecker.com/profile.asp?WId=89

Let us know how it goes...

For the med I need, my local pharmacy doesn't have the generic version, although they said there is a generic version in Canada.

The German/English Lyrics:

Lützenkirchen - "3 Tage wach" (Three days awake)

Pille - Palle - Alle Prall
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff
Verpeilt und verschallert, alle verballert,
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

Pills - Balls - Everyone Prall
wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted
wasted and ?, everyone bombed,
wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted

Auf gehts ab gehts, 3 Tage wach
Nächste Party kommt bestimmt, 3 Tage wach
Afterhour vor der Hour, 3 Tage wach
3 Tage wach jetzt wirst du langsam schwach

Come on, let's go, three days awake
Next party comes for sure, three days awake
Afterhour before the hour, three days awake
three days awake, you're slowly getting weak

....

volle Kanne einwurf, 3 tage wach
paniert und ding dong ding dong, 3 tage wach
bunte Pillen Fete, 3 Tage wach
Puls wie ne Rakete, 3 Tage wach

Popping all the way, three days awake
trashed and ding dong ding dong, three days awake
colourful pills party, three days awake
pulse like a rocket, three days awake

........

punkt punkt komma klar, 3 Tage wach
du warst gestern auch schon da, 3 Tage wach
spieglein an der Wand wer ist 3 Tage wach
du und deine Oma sind 3 Tage wach

dot dot comma, right, three days awake
yesterday you were here too, three days awake
mirror on the wall, who's there three days awake
you and your grandmother are three days awake

Nase voll, Pimmel schrumpft, 3 Tage wach
Essen doof, Schlafen doof 3 Tage wach
Banane in der Birne, 3 Tage wach
bollerbuden dirndl, 3 Tage wach

nose filled, dick shrinks, three days awake
food sucks, sleep sucks, three days awake
banana in the head, three days awake
bollerbuden drindel (?), three days awake

notfall Apotheke, 3 Tage wach
Rotz auf der Tapete, 3 Tage wach
verplant paniert, 3 Tage wach
völlig ungeniert, 3 Tage wach

emergency pharmacy, three days awake
snot on the wallpaper, three days awake
confused hammered, three days awake
totally unabashed, three days awake

....

Teller bis zum Unterkiefer, 3 tage wach
in der Hose ungeziefer, 3 tage wach
Flasche leer, Feuerwehr 3 tage wach
laufen geht jetzt auch nicht mehr, 3 tage wach

plates until the lower jaw, three days awake
bugs in your underpants, three days awake
bottle empty, fire department, three days awake
I can no longer stand on my feet, three days awake

Pille - Balls - Alle Prall
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff -Druff
Verpeilt und verschallert, alle verballert,
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

Pille - Balls - Everyone Prall
wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted
wasted and ?, everyone bombed
wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted - wasted

edit: i.e. a slightly corrected version of this translation
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread/t-466396.html

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very nice comment thread. Enjoyed the 'recreational pharmacy' comment, especially with the note that purchasers be required to read (or watch) and understand the serious dangers their purchasing decisioned may bring to them.

A relative described their addiction (to illegal narcotics) to me once. It took a good friend moving in to help him change his habits and seek help, and it wasn't through lecturing or berating; simply seeing how a friend lived a contrastingly busy and successful life made my relative realize how he was wasting his own talents. He is now in his early-50's, retired, and owns three homes around the world. I often credit him with my serious aversion to hard drugs. I also sometimes wonder, what if he were imprisoned all those years ago?