• BASIC DRUG
    DISCUSSION
    Welcome to Bluelight!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Benzo Chart Opioids Chart
    Drug Terms Need Help??
    Drugs 101 Brain & Addiction
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums
  • BDD Moderators: Keif’ Richards

Really hate the way drug side effects are listed in pamphlets and on websites.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SaosinEngaged

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
449
You know why? Because they RARELY come with incidence rates. So it's like; Warning, this drug can cause 7,873 side effects, but doesn't tell you that 3/4ths of those occur in like <1% of patients, nor does it discuss the conditions in which those patients experienced those side effects. Like if they were on other medications with interactions, or were prone to them, et cetera.

This most recently drove me nuts with Tramadol which I've been prescribed and have been basically panicking over the fact it can cause seizures. With the reassurance of many members here and after a little digging on my own, I found the incidence rate of new onset seizures from Tramadol alone is SIGNIFICANTLY rare (in therapeutic dose ranges below 400mg/day), yet the pharmacy pamphlet makes you worry your ass off if you're like me and generally concerned about the negative effects drugs can have on your body.

I feel like this kind of information should be much more accessible to the general public and just as pharmaceutical companies must list side effects, they should also inform of their rarity outside of vague terms like "common, less common, rare, etc" and the conditions behind their occurrence. I'm sure it all relates to some kind of lawsuit protection, but it's something that has always bothered me (how you have to basically read research papers for this information).

Sites like webmd and drugs.com are notorious with this stuff as well.

Does this bother anyone else?
 
Every time I get a prescription, it doesn't give me a percentage, but it will say "Rare, but serious side effects" or "Very rare, but very serious side effects," or something to that effect. They're just trying not to downplay what the drug can do, and possibly, deter people from abusing the drug. And yes, while it is rare when taken at therapeutic doses; however, the seizure threshold does drop dramatically when taken in recreational doses: such as someone that takes, say, 400mg at once.
 
Better safe than sorry. It's more for a legal Cover Your Ass type of relationship because people are really sue-happy around unexpected side effects with drugs. 0.1% of a lot of people taking a poplar drug (or even an aspen or birch drug, ha ha) is going to be a nonzero number so printing some extra warnings with meds is better than class action lawsuits and possible loss of marketing rights. (That's the "catch")..

If you are concerned about your body, do the research. Open access to things like PubMed and Google Scholar make it super easy these days.
 
Most of the patient info i have does list rare , comon side effects givng percenttage rates from trials.

Most recently I have provided tem to my work place as I've had some quite strong negative side effects with soe of the ADs I've been on, tagning from being totally off the planet to internal bleeding.

I always give the new stuff a good check out on th the net before I start taking them just so I know the exepcted side effects and any other drugs I shouldnt be taking at the same time, doctors are crap at telling you such things. I had a guy at work offering me Tramadol FOC as he jhad piles of the stuff then i checked i I shouldnt be anywhere near it along sode the AD I'm on.
 
Last edited:
If you're not properly warned, can't you sue?
Or something like that, I think they're saving their asses by saying "watch out, I'm warning you but it can do this.... please don't sue us if it does."

I'm not sure, but I think they're doing the right thing by telling the user all of the sideeffects.


If anything, I believe side-effects should be promoted, because sometimes I don't read them and end up worse!
 
I appreciate the difficulties and how it can over-worry people, but it is a legal requirement and people do have the right to know what could potentially happen - even if the chances are remote. I agree that it might be helpful to list incidence rates, but at the same time they are just an abstract number - and if it affects you, it doesn't matter if it happens to 1:10 or 1:100000 others. It is very difficult to make sense of an incidence rate in terms of how much risk you are prepared to accept. However I do agree that it could be beneficial to be more precise as well as the "common" and "rare" labels.

Pubmed, Google Scholar and speaking to a medical professional are indeed your friends :)
 
I find it amusing how, on TV commercials for some pharmaceuticals make the side effects sound worse than the condition the medication treats .
 
^Exactly, this is a decent thing to bring up, but not in the question and answer forum that is Basic Drug Discussion, would have made more sense to post this in your blog as NT said or to maybe post it in the social/info thread.

Am going to close this now

If anyone has any problems with my closing of the thread or think that it should be reopened then shoot me a PM

Mugz :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top