Bupe Why do all Bupe Drs knowingly lie about bupe having little to no side effects and having "no withdrawal"

[MuertaMan]

They know its brutal, they know its comparatively endless compared to regular opioids and they know it makes you turn into the equivalent of a neutered fat old dog that just sits in the corner with no urge to do anything anymore with bad fatigue/shaky anxiety/nausea/constipation/gut pain etc. Why is it when you ask them in the beginning "hey I have some concerns will you be helping making me comfortable when I want to come off this at some point Im not staying on this shit forever" and they say "yeah yeah no problem we will tackle that issue when its time" and then when its time they say in dressed up language pretty much "theres the door fuck you you wanna quit subs do it on your own druggie you'll just die and relapse if you stop so I dont feel comfortable helping" when in reality they just enjoy the money. Feels like all this shit should be grounds for lawsuits and malpractice but everyone of these quacks Ive ever been is just like that.

 

[negrogesic]

I'm not sure how knowingly they do this, or to what degree ignorance is involved.

It is an interesting phenomenon though. Imagine being a physician and prescribing medication without reading up on said medication beyond the promotional pamphlets or prescribing leaflet. Psychiatrists may be perhaps the worst offenders here. Part of this stems from the fact that psychiatry attracts the bottom of the barrel as far as physicians go, with these physicians having among the worst average USMLE exams (licensing) scores of any physician specialty. Not surprisingly they tend to lack intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn, and are among the most insecure about their knowledge (which makes them even more resistant to learn since it might mean their understanding of something is wrong).

If I was on a plane and having a medical emergency and there was a dentist and psychiatrist on board, I'd rather take assistance from the dentist (despite the fact that the psychiatrist has an MD).

 

[MuertaMan]

Good point, I also think theres a degree of "out of sight out of mind" going on where they don't want to face any accountability and want the narrative in their head to be "this medicine is a miracle Im saving peoples lives by doing this" and plug their ears when you try to tell them that the stuff turns on you and rears its ugly head eventually.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

It's bizarre. In some places people who are wanting to get ON subs have the door slammed in their faces and can't find any doctor willing to prescribe, while in others people who want to come OFF them are practically pressured to stay on.

I suspect about equal parts ignorance, financial motivation, and a predictable consequence of this inane narrative that tries to equate opiate addiction with something like diabetes.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Physicians have broad knowledge but no depth, I definitely don't expect them to understand all the nuance of the drugs they prescribe because they aren't taught that in med school

I should also add that what I've been taught in my pharm course work is that longer half life equates to less intense but more drawn out withdrawal, this is taught by the same faculty that teach med students

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

Physicians have broad knowledge but no depth, I definitely don't expect them to understand all the nuance of the drugs they prescribe because they aren't taught that in med school

Exactly, because their job is to diagnose and treat your condition, not to have in-depth knowledge of the properties of the medications they prescribe, beyond which condition they're indicated for. That's why hospitals have clinical pharmacists.

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

It's not just buprenorphine either.

You'd be surprised how many doctors are ignorant about a lot of drugs.

They also get kickbacks for new drugs when they come out.
I was put on Vraylar when it came out. And developed a non stop spasm in one of my eyelids.
It took 5 months for that spasm to stop, even after stopping the vraylar. And it wasn't until after that 5 months that the makers of it finally put "blepherospasms" on their side effect list. So I was basically a guinea pig & that shit fucked me up. And some one made profit off of it. Fucking disgusting.

It's all a paycheck to them. I trust junkies more when it comes to medicine questions because at least we study this shit out of passion & have first hand experience. Doctors will tell you "don't go doing your own googling"... but then when you have a question or concern, what do they do? They hop on google. lol

Hell the pharmacists where I get my meds can't even pronounce the word buprenorphine & act like they have no idea what it is. lol

I think this is mostly an American thing.
I can remember when tramadol was still unscheduled & doctors & pharmacist's actually believed it was "just like another tylenol" lol



Sorry you had this experience OP. My clinic actually warned me that the withdrawal is so severe that they recommend slowly tapering & then doing inpatient treatment to watch over me when I finally come off of it. But since I have no plans on ever stopping opioids, I wasn't going to worry about coming off of it. Although I am tired of being on a shitty opioid. I guess until they allow us to use a better opioid, I'm stuck with Sub-parboxone.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Idk I would trust most pharmacists and pharmacologists over physicians or junkies even though some addicts definitely do have more in depth pharmacology knowledge than physicians

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

Most pharmacists & physicians just do what their told.

So if the "literature" in America says "tramadol is like another tylenol", then that's what the pharmacists are gonna believe.
And they were actually told this for like.. over 30 years? Tramadol was unscheduled since the 90's. And there was plenty of European literature online at the time showing that tramadol was indeed an opioid. Even I knew it was because I was dependent on it.

Yet I was able to fill 180 count bottles twice in one month, all the time, back in like 2009-2012. Because the pharmacists actually believed it was non-addictive. lmao

Eventually they caught on scheduled tramadol in like 2015 or something.

But this showed me that unless the pharmacist or physician truly has an interest or passion in medicine, then they're just going to regurgitate whatever propaganda they're told by governing agencies.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I think you misunderstand how science works, governing agencies aren't the ones in control of literature and for there to be guidelines about how to do something there needs to be published evidence. That's the entire basis of evidence based medicine. That's not to say things won't be wrong sometimes, they definitely are but as long as pharmacists are keeping up with the state of the literature they'll provide better advice for the use of medications

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

Prolly been said but it's the $ and it is a huge business.
All I got.
Peace

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

I think you misunderstand how science works, governing agencies aren't the ones in control of literature and for there to be guidelines about how to do something there needs to be published evidence. That's the entire basis of evidence based medicine. That's not to say things won't be wrong sometimes, they definitely are but as long as pharmacists are keeping up with the state of the literature they'll provide better advice for the use of medications

Oh so you're telling me the FDA, CDC & NIH have nothing to do with the literature these people read?
Is that why the CDC & FDA were pushing vaccines (and still are) because they have no control over the guidelines right? Pfft.

Most pharmacology literature comes from places like pubmed & the NIH.

They just let tramadol slide right on by for 30 years, even though you could find literature from European countries describing it as an opioid that entire time. You know, because their "science" says it wasn't an opioid. So why did the US ignore all the other literature at the time? And how did they even come to the conclusion that it "wasn't an opioid" unless the "science" was fudged in the favor of the company trying to sell it & market it?

Same with oxycontin.

Oh remember VIOXX. And how they had to pull Darvocet off shelves due to finding out LATER that it had a cardiotoxic metabolite.

Oh aren't the makers of Suboxone also in trouble? Mostly for trying to squash competitors, but they also made up their own literature saying "the naloxone in suboxone makes it non-abusable!" which is clearly not true.

Drugs can't even be sold or marketed without a governing agency saying it's "ok" first. And if you think the pharma companies aren't in bed with the government, then I dunno what to tell you.

I'm well aware of "how science works". And if you think there's no corruption in the medical & pharmaceutical industry, then this will just fall on deaf ears. Today's "science" is whatever they want it to be, clearly.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Where does pubmed literature come from? Do you think pubmed is an agency doing research?

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

Where does pubmed literature come from? Do you think pubmed is an agency doing research?

No, but you're clearly insinuating that to try & make me look stupid.

How much of that research is funded by the pharmaceutical company trying to sell it?

And then who approves it & then hosts that research online for doctors & pharmacists to read?


Who do you think came up with the new "opioid prescribing guidelines"? Certainly not pubmed or scientists.
Who do you think has to follow those guidelines? Doctors & pharmacists.

So yes, the FDA, CDC & NIH are all involved with that "science" because they then spread it as gospel, even if it's untrue. They also set "guidelines" on what's okay & what's not.
And the pharma company can lobby & published whatever "science" they see fit to get that drug marketed.
How do you think drugs like tramadol & oxycontin got approved as "non addictive" without somebody fudging that "science" & then the governing agencies not bothering to double check until 30 years later?

 

[Jen X]

I went to a psychiatrist after my husband passed because i was a mess. She asked what anti depressant i wanted and what benzo . After a 5 minute talk. I'm now dependent on benzos and wished i wasn't. I should have been taught how to deal with the anxiety without meds. I found my dead husband , of course i was a mess.

All it did was teach me that there was a pill to numb myself and that's what i've been doing for 15 years.

 

[Jen X]

Another doctor gave me a 3 year oxy script because i said my shoulder hurt, but they weren't addictive right

 

[someguyontheinternet]

No, but you're clearly insinuating that to try & make me look stupid.

How much of that research is funded by the pharmaceutical company trying to sell it?

And then who approves it & then hosts that research online for doctors & pharmacists to read?


Who do you think came up with the new "opioid prescribing guidelines"? Certainly not pubmed or scientists.
Who do you think has to follow those guidelines? Doctors & pharmacists.

So yes, the FDA, CDC & NIH are all involved with that "science" because they then spread it as gospel, even if it's untrue.
And the pharma company can lobby & published whatever "science" they see fit to get that drug marketed.

The majority of research is funded by institutions like the NIH not private companies, the NIH does not have a say on what does or doesn't get published however there is a bias in what types of projects get funded. Considering you think that the government simply having a database of published research makes me think that no, you do not understand how it works. Are you involved in research at all? Have you ever worked in a lab? Have you published anything?

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

the NIH does not have a say on what does or doesn't get published however there is a bias in what types of projects get funded. Considering you think that the government simply having a database of published research makes me think that no, you do not understand how it works. Are you involved in research at all? Have you ever worked in a lab? Have you published anything?

LOL

Fuck you dude. You couldn't' answer a single one of my questions.

Had to immediately jump to "well have you ever worked in a lab?"

So you can't address anything I say, you're just trying really hard to make me look stupid.

If corrupt agencies can fudge "science" in favor of a pharmaceutical company, then nothing I've said is actually wrong.

No one needs to be a rocket scientist to see big pharma & government corruption.

The majority of research is funded by institutions like the NIH not private companies,

Oh gee, so it is funded by a government agency.

 

[DeathIndustrial88]

Some one here clearly has an invested interest in downplaying pharmaceutical & government corruption.

Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps you make good money off pushing shit drugs on innocent people too.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Yea there is absolutely corruption but not to the degree you imply nor at the areas you seem to think it is. I can tell you haven't had experience in research because you'd have a far different perspective

Downplaying is not the same as having a realistic perspective