Fuck Doctors

[compared2what?]

No. You could be the greatest living expert on Zyprexa and metabolic disturbance in the world today. You still wouldn't be doing anything but endangering others by handing out advice about it on the internet without one word of qualification or demurral. You don't even know the proposed dosage.

I don't doubt your good intentions. But they don't excuse your heedlessness. Nothing does. And nothing could. You should know better.

For pete's sake all I did was post side effects from wikipedia.

Come on. HoL linked to the wiki entry himself. In his first post. And you didn't just cut and paste. You also added some remarks that might have been about metabolic disturbance if you hadn't gone on to define it wrongly and -- in fact -- nonsensically.

The effects may not coincide with your endorsement that the the drugs are probably not a health risk but there is no need to nag me for posting the side effects.

I did not endorse any drugs. And especially not that drug, my personal low opinion of which I've expressed several times before. But that's my PERSONAL opinion. Nordic, for example, has another, which he stated responsibly and reasonably upthread.

Nor did I say that they were probably not a health risk in those terms. Because I wouldn't presume to fucking do it. I also made it clear that I wasn't a doctor and wasn't qualified to give medical advice.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Could we have less of this please?

If you've got a problem with it, take it up with the mods. It's not a personal thing. It's a safety thing. So I can't back down. I'm sorry.

[compared2what?]

No. You could be the greatest living expert on Zyprexa and metabolic disturbance in the world today. You still wouldn't be doing anything but endangering others by handing out advice about it on the internet without one word of qualification or demurral. You don't even know the proposed dosage.

I don't doubt your good intentions. But they don't excuse your heedlessness. Nothing does. And nothing could. You should know better.

For pete's sake all I did was post side effects from wikipedia. The effects may not coincide with your endorsement that the the drugs are probably not a health risk but there is no need to nag me for posting the side effects. Could we have less of this please?

OK im done with this bullshit ,

So prey tell me C2W . Exactly what are the correct dosages of such meds ?

Well, slim. I'm glad you asked. The answer is:

Assuming that the prescribing physician was going by the book, the standard therapeutic dosage would depend on the condition being treated, among other factors. However, for the atypical neuroleptics -- such as Zyprexa and Seroquel and Risperdal and all those other drugs I personally think are atrocious -- the side effects and related stats that are listed in the packaging are based on the presumption that they'll be prescribed as anti-psychotics (ie, for schizophrenia, etc), at standard therapeutic dosages that are -- depending on the drug -- somewhere between four to ten times higher than the standard therapeutic dosages at which they're prescribed for conditions that don't include psychosis.

Hypomania, by definition, does not have psychotic features. If it did, it wouldn't be hypomania. It would just be mania. That's why, as you may have noticed, I went to some trouble to point out that there were a lot of drugs to which hypomania was treatment responsive that aren't even, properly speaking, psychotropic medications. Most of them are anti-convulsants that just happen to have mood-stabilizing properties.

I certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone take any of them unless both he/she and his/her doctor really thought it was necessary, though. They do have side effects that -- however easily tolerable they might be to people to whom it's a relief to feel like themselves, and think their own thoughts, and sleep, and eat, and all that other stuff that you can't do when you're running down the street naked burning $100 bills or whatever -- nobody probably really enjoys enough to undergo them just for the sheer hell of it.

However, I am not a doctor. And a lot of doctors don't go by the book. So I couldn't possibly speak to what dosage any individual might be prescribed. Let alone to its propriety. And still less to its odds of triggering any particular set of side effects.

You'd have to have the person's medical history and -- you know -- a medical degree of some kind in order to address that kind of question.

Ill leave the more important questions of who sanctioned these things in the first place//who carried out the trials/ were they independent trials ?/ until youve impressed me with your stunning knowledge of the original question.

The atypical neuroleptics (again, Zyprexa and the other new-generation anti-psychotics) were pushed through with shitty trials and released with a whole tsunami of completely false hype claiming that they didn't cause tardive dyskinesia, which they not only do, but in some cases, do more frequently than the old-school anti-psychotics. Plus, at anti-psychotic dosages, they do often lead to weight gain, and sometimes from there to associated problems (such as diabetes). Some more than others, of course. And with the usual proviso. (I am not a doctor.)

But if you're asking me whether I think the approval process for those drugs was impartial or adequate or anything besides an outrage and insult, the answer is: No. I do not.

However, I try to bear in mind that some people find taking them beneficial. Because I'm pro-choice wrt personal healthcare decision-making.

^^That assumes we're not talking about people who are literally being medicated by force, obviously.

[compared2what?]

Sorry, I didn't realize there was more.

In the meantime, heres the bottom line based upon my best assumptions gleaned from some real hard truths

Modern medicine is little more than a corporate fucking scam. It has nothing to do with cure and everything to do with treatment, and were those treatments themselves even remotely effective half the time ( beyond preserving people long enough to procure more treatment) then Id be prepared to give modern medicine the doubt. But the simple fact is they arent.

OK, Ive no doubt youre going cite us all with examples of how such medicines are doing wondrous things.

If that's true, you must not read my posts.

Question ; For all the miraculous advances in our technology over the last century, how many major diseases have been cured ? Menengitis , Cancer , Multiple Scleroris, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Cardiovascular disease ? I could go on , but I think you get the idea.

Heres my take. I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit that were they available, comparable studies would clearly prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that eating well and living right would beat the shit out of "modern medicine" a thousand times over. That correct vitamin supplements would do the same.

You can well understand therefore that it comes as little surprise to me or anyone else who has studied the ongoing encroaching forced compliance with regards to what you can/cant eat, grow, take by way of natural remedy, or otherwise use to cure you and heal you has been with increasing velocity removed from the public domain.

Fuk modern medicine for sure.

You're entitled to your opinions. I sometimes wish you'd make more of a case for them than you do. Because I'd like to see the evidence. But I've got no problem with your belief in any of that, of course. I'm happy for you. I just don't entirely agree with you.

I could DEFINITELY say "Fuck modern medicine, for sure," though. I probably don't mean exactly what you do, true. But that doesn't mean I don't mean it.

[eyeno]

compared2what wrote:
Nor did I say that they were probably not a health risk in those terms. Because I wouldn't presume to fucking do it.

Sure you did. That is what 'these' terms mean. You didn't stop at "probably" and went to "pretty sure."

compared2what wrote:
They probably all sometimes have undesirable side-effects for some people. But it's my understanding -- did I mention that I wasn't a doctor? I'm not! -- that even then, they're usually fairly minor considerations for most. And unless you're in some rule-out category, I'm pretty sure none of them is very likely to pose any kind of risk to general health, properly speaking.

compared2what wrote:
But that's my PERSONAL opinion.

Absolutely and I respected your right to have one. I didn't call you out and browbeat you like i'm your father. I had one too and if you don't like it present your own data and stop all the petty browbeating.

No. You could be the greatest living expert on Zyprexa and metabolic disturbance in the world today. You still wouldn't be doing anything but endangering others by handing out advice about it on the internet without one word of qualification or demurral. You don't even know the proposed dosage.
I don't doubt your good intentions. But they don't excuse your heedlessness. Nothing does. And nothing could. You should know better.

Thats pretty funny coming from someone who wrote as much "advice" you did.



You are not my mamma.

It is preferable that you refrain from attacking me personally and resist the urge to chide and scold me as a mother would a bad child. If you do not agree with my posting of the dangerous side effects of medication, and believe the side effects are minimal, it is possible for you to post your own opinion and data and leave my person out of the equation. In many, but maybe not all cases, it is possible for you to address the message instead of the messenger. Perhaps as you said, its a matter of style. Attacking the messenger is not necessarily equal to presenting a coherent argument. I hope this can be a new precedent for the future.

[compared2what?]

I am not attacking you personally. You're doing something that's wrong. I decry the wrong act. Not the actor.

I made it totally fucking clear that what I was saying wasn't rock-solid and the only advice I gave was to speak to a doctor.

You can read. So I'm sure you know that.

[compared2what?]

I don't pretend to be your mamma or your better or anything else.

I think what you're doing is wrong and seriously dangerous. What would you want me to do about what I believed, based on conviction, information and thorough consideration, to be a serious danger? Ignore it?

Take it up with the mods if you think I'm out of line.

[compared2what?]

I don't believe the side effects are minimal

I have no opinion about that wrt Zyprexa. I'm not in a position to say.

I did say that the side effects of most of the drugs I named do not include serious health risks for most people. Because they don't. But that's not an unqualified statement, in that it does allow for the possibility of serious side effects.*** I also followed it (and preceded it) by making it clear that those were questions to ask a doctor.

Further, you didn't just cut-and-paste. You added your own personal little definition of metabolic disturbance, which you evidently think of as another term for "toxicity." That was not true or good information. It was, in fact, uninformation.

You should know better.

Take it up with the mods if you've got a problem with my saying that.

***Which some of them do have, btw. Lithium can cause liver damage. It rarely does. But it can. And Lamictal has about an infinity-to-one chance of causing a fatal irreversible disease where all your skin falls off in children. So they include the warning for adults too. Just in case. IMO, a good doctor should tell anyone taking it to be alert to any skin changes for the first week or two, even though -- to the best of my knowledge -- nobody's actually ever had that response.

You can't be too careful. Or too accurate. I advise talking to doctors about it, personally.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Eyeno needs to take a chill pill.

He's getting a bit manic there.

Sorry man, just my little joke.

Learn Pranayama.

Learning to breathe is learning to calm down.

Balance is the key in all things!

Well, maybe combined with all the other keys.


...

[compared2what?]

This is not brow-beating. If you want to know what you did that was wrong and potentially dangerous, it was this:

You posted medical information out of context that you don't understand and aren't qualified to advise people about, along with a false (or maybe just ignorantly erroneous) statement about a medication's toxicity. You also posted only the potentially adverse effects of taking it, as if there was no possibility of benefit. Which is bullshit. I mean, I'm totally hostile to that drug, personally. But even I'd concede that some people swear by it.

And on top of that:

You were addressing someone who had himself not only ALREADY linked to the information source you were cutting and pasting from, but also made a comment indicating that he knew what the side effects were AT THE VERY SAME TIME.

It's not showing concern or respect or sensitivity for other people to do that, eyeno. It's imposing your othodoxy on them, possibly at the expense of their health and well-being.

And don't tell me I did the same thing. I didn't. I told him to talk to his doctor and his wife, and suggested some talking points. Not because I think they're the best talking points. But because I knew there were other possibilities that didn't seem to have been mentioned. So I gave as much information about them as I could. In neutral terms. Deferring to the opinion of someone who was qualified to say.

[compared2what?]

Sorry to be hogging the mike, HoL.

I am really happy that it worked out for you w/o meds, however.

I hope that you know that a little hypomania just kinda happens sometimes. As does singing and dancing. So please don't be distressed about that, at least. Even if I don't know what I'm talking about. Which I don't.

[bks]

c2w? wrote:
The atypical neuroleptics (again, Zyprexa and the other new-generation anti-psychotics) were pushed through with shitty trials and released with a whole tsunami of completely false hype claiming that they didn't cause tardive dyskinesia, which they not only do, but in some cases, do more frequently than the old-school anti-psychotics. Plus, at anti-psychotic dosages, they do often lead to weight gain, and sometimes from there to associated problems (such as diabetes). Some more than others, of course. And with the usual proviso. (I am not a doctor.)

But if you're asking me whether I think the approval process for those drugs was impartial or adequate or anything besides an outrage and insult, the answer is: No. I do not.

However, I try to bear in mind that some people find taking them beneficial. Because I'm pro-choice wrt personal healthcare decision-making.

Some people find taking them valuable, whatever the class of controversial drug we're speaking of, c2w?. Without question. But, see, that might not be as important a point as you've make it out to be [here and elsewhere]. Let me try to explain why I think that.

The reason "some people" can benefit from Big Pharma products, of course, is because those products are on the market, and they're only on the market because the drug companies were successful at bringing them to market, and they are successful at bringing them to market because the often-quite-negative side effects the drugs have on a portion of those on whom they were tested, have been effectively "managed" [by being elided, diminished, obscured, or downplayed in a variety of ways, often including out-and-out lying on the part of drugs reps to doctors, and lying on the part of companies to their drug reps, and/or those negative aspects of the drug being buried under 'false hype', and the like]. This is a wide-ranging, if not ubiquitous, feature of the system within which these drugs are brought to market. The atypical neuroleptics are not alone in this respect.

All of which means that the benefits some people find in taking them will come at the cost of consigning others [and often many others] to rather horrible outcomes which they have not been properly warned about [it is another matter whether warning them would necessarily make them safer or allow them to avoid the bad outcomes. The evidence is far from clear that it would, but let's leave that for now]. That is a considerable cost for allowing those who will benefit form the drug to benefit from it, wouldn't you say? And let's be clear: within the current system, protecting the benefit those "some people" get often virtually entails the negative outcomes to those improperly-warned others.

I'm not arguing, of course, that the pharmaceutical industry is alone among major institutions w/r/t this feature.

You admit the atypical neuroleptics were "pushed through with shitty trials and released with a whole tsunami of completely false hype," which I'll take your word for. The bigger point - the one I haven't heard you make, or which I may have missed - pertains to the system, and not any one case within it. To paraphrase David Healy, the problem is that the system of industry-based pharmaceutical testing, and not this or that particular set of trials, does not conform to the norms of science. The pharmaceutical companies control the data they generate. They control [or greatly influence] the manner in which the papers interpreting that data are written up, and which purport to provide the scientific basis for the proper prescription and use of the medications in question. They control the major journals in which the data is published. And they understand that the bottom facts about the substances will not come out unless there is a court trial several years after they've made their hundreds of millions if not billions, and perhaps not even then.

I don't think I've heard you admit to this, but perhaps I just missed it. Or, perhaps that's because you don't believe it to be true. So I'm asking! Do you accept that the system of pharmaceutical industry drug testing does not conform to the norms of science?

[compared2what?]

I don't know the norms. But it sure as hell demonstrably doesn't conform to acceptable standards. For science, for industry, or for ordinary consideration and concern for one's fellow humans.

Further, the agencies charged with holding it to those standards don't conform to acceptable standards for regulatory bodies charged with safeguarding the public weal.

Still further, there's absolutely no system at all of any kind for ensuring that people who need and/or want any form of medical care will get it or -- alternately -- for preventing people who don't from being treated for conditions they don't have. And that's true even for people who have access to affordable healthcare and a choice of competent practitioners when all parties are acting with the best will in the world.

_____________________

But to return to the sole possible aspect of contemporary healthcare that's worth discussing, per common consensus:

All signs indicate that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't give a fuck about anybody's health or welfare or, ftm, anything other than pure profit. For that reason, the number of medications it has any interest in forcing on the American population is actually in a state of slow decline. And they're not investing much in developing or researching new ones these days either. Their future profits lie primarily in peddling the wares they've already got in the emerging Asian marketplace. That's why (for example) they've begun not bothering to deliver basic medicines to the hospitals that order them in this country.

____________________

More later.

[eyeno]

I didn't notice that hammer had linked to the side effects. Had I noticed I might have posted them anyway since he already linked to them and it was relevant to his concerns. Most people post here because they enjoy discussing information other people post.

This issue is not my hobby horse, I don't like back and forth word games that hinge on creative interpretation, but since i'm not doing anything important at the moment, and my remarks were not sensitive, wrong, seriously dangerous, a product of my own limitations, heedless without excuse, construed as advice, incorrectly defined, nonsense, un-information, bullshit, imposing orthodoxy, and at an expense to health, I am willing to examine them further for accuracy.

eyeno wrote:

Hey hammer of los. Best wishes to you brother. I don't know if you have looked this up but if you haven't I am delivering it to your plate for your consumption.

Bottom line in a nutshell is that you might expect metabolic disturbance from Olanzapine. Metabolic disturbance denotes toxicity happening in the body.

I like your valerian idea, A LOT
Not giving medical advice but this is the possible consequences of Olanzapine, and not sure I like the way it reads.

I hope the valerian works for you bro.


As with all neuroleptic drugs, olanzapine can cause the (sometimes) irreversible movement disorder tardive dyskinesia, and the rare, but life-threatening, neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Some also associate all antipsychotics with permanent brain damage.[20]

Other recognised side effects may include:

akathisia; inability to remain still (restlessness)[21]
dry mouth
dizziness
irritability
sedation
insomnia
constipation
urinary retention
orthostatic hypotension
weight gain
increased appetite
runny nose
impaired judgment, thinking, and motor skills
impaired spatial orientation
impaired responses to senses
seizures
trouble swallowing
dental problems and discoloration of teeth
missed periods
problems with keeping body temperature regulated
apathy, lack of emotion
Endocrine side effects have included hyperprolactinemia, hyperglycemia, and diabetes mellitus
Brain Zaps
Auditory Hallucinations[22]

[edit] Metabolic effects

The Food and Drug Administration requires all atypical antipsychotics to include a warning about the risk of developing hyperglycemia and diabetes, both of which are factors in the metabolic syndrome. These effects may be related to the drugs' ability to induce weight gain, although there are some reports of metabolic changes in the absence of weight gain.[citation needed] Studies have indicated that Olanzapine carries a greater risk of causing and exacerbating diabetes than another commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotic, Risperidone. Of all the atypical antipsychotics, olanzapine is one of the most likely to induce weight gain based on various measures.[23][24][25][26] The effect is not dose dependent.[dubious – discuss] Olanzapine may directly affect adipocyte function, promoting fat deposition.[27] There are some case reports of olanzapine-induced diabetic ketoacidosis.[28] Olanzapine may decrease insulin sensitivity.[29] though one 3-week study seems to refute this.[30] It may also increase triglyceride levels.[24]

Recent studies have established :

that Olanzapine and Clozapine disturb the metabolism by making the body take preferentially its energy from fat (instead of privileging carbohydrates). Thus, levels of carbohydrates remaining high, the body would develop insulin resistance (reduction of insulin sensitivity).[31]
that Olanzapine promotes fat accumulation : due to disturbances in fat metabolism, rodents become fatter (but don't have their weight increasing at first). Being fatter, they do less exercise, burning less fat and gaining weight.[32]

Despite weight gain, a large multi-center randomized National Institute of Mental Health study found that olanzapine was better at controlling symptoms because patients were more likely to remain on olanzapine than the other drugs.[33] One small, open-label, non-randomized study suggest that taking olanzapine by orally dissolving tablets may induce less weight gain,[34] but this has not been substantiated in a blinded experimental setting.
[edit] Animal toxicology

In a placebo-compared study of six Macaque monkeys receiving olanzapine between 17 and 27 months, a significant brain volume and weight decreases (8-11%) were detected.[35] In latter studies of the stored samples, the changes were attributed to astrocyte and oligodendrocyte loss,[36] with the neurons spared but positioned more closely compared to the controls.[clarification needed] However according to this study the neurons do not seem to be completely spared. The gray matter shrinking found was 14.6%, but the neuron density increase was only 10.2% which corresponds to approximately a loss of 5% of the neurons.[citation needed]

Olanzapine has demonstrated carcinogenic effects in multiple studies when exposed chronically to female mice and rats, but not male mice and rats. The tumors found were in either the liver or mammary glands of the animals.[37]
[edit] Discontinuation

The British National Formulary recommends a gradual withdrawal when discontinuing anti-psychotic treatment to avoid acute withdrawal syndrome or rapid relapse.[38] Due to compensatory changes at dopamine, serotonin, adrenergic and histamine receptor sites in the central nervous system, withdrawal symptoms can occur during abrupt or over-rapid reduction in dosage. Withdrawal symptoms reported to occur after discontinuation of antipsychotics include nausea, emesis, lightheadedness, diaphoresis, dyskinesia, orthostasis, tachycardia, nervousness, dizziness, headache, excessive non-stop crying, and anxiety. The present evidence suggests that these symptoms affect a small number of susceptible individuals treated with antipsychotics.[39][40] Complicated and long-lasting rebound insomnia symptoms can occur after withdrawing from antipsychotics.[citation needed]
[edit] Overdose

Symptoms of an overdose include tachycardia, agitation, dysarthria, decreased consciousness and coma. Death has been reported after an acute overdose of 450 mg, but also survival after an acute overdose of 1500 mg.[41] There is no known specific antidote for olanzapine overdose, and even physicians are recommended to call a certified poison control center for information on the treatment of such a case.[41] Prescription should be kept in small quantity to reduce risk overdose as acute bipolar disorder and schizophrenic patients can be at a high risk of suicide (Eli Lilly 2010
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Olanzapine

Which extrapolated into:

compared2what wrote:
I think what you're doing is wrong and seriously dangerous. What would you want me to do about what I believed, based on conviction, information and thorough consideration, to be a serious danger? Ignore it?

compared2what wrote:
You posted medical information out of context that you don't understand and aren't qualified to advise people about, along with a false (or maybe just ignorantly erroneous) statement about a medication's toxicity. You also posted only the potentially adverse effects of taking it, as if there was no possibility of benefit. Which is bullshit.

compared2what wrote:
You were addressing someone who had himself not only ALREADY linked to the information source you were cutting and pasting from, but also made a comment indicating that he knew what the side effects were AT THE VERY SAME TIME.

Didn't notice. Gave him benefit points for obvious intelligence

compared2what wrote:
It's not showing concern or respect or sensitivity for other people to do that, eyeno. It's imposing your othodoxy on them, possibly at the expense of their health and well-being.

compared2what wrote:
You added your own personal little definition of metabolic disturbance, which you evidently think of as another term for "toxicity." That was not true or good information. It was, in fact, uninformation.

compared2what wrote:
eyeno, you have a moral imperative to be more sensitive to the dangers posed by your own limitations than that. Under all circumstances. Without exception.

compared2what wrote:
No. You could be the greatest living expert on Zyprexa and metabolic disturbance in the world today. You still wouldn't be doing anything but endangering others by handing out advice about it on the internet without one word of qualification or demurral. You don't even know the proposed dosage.

compared2what wrote:
You're doing something that's wrong. I decry the wrong act.

compared2what wrote:
I don't doubt your good intentions. But they don't excuse your heedlessness. Nothing does. And nothing could. You should know better.

compared2what wrote:
You also added some remarks that might have been about metabolic disturbance if you hadn't gone on to define it wrongly and -- in fact -- nonsensically.

Wow. That is a ton of heathen behavior right there.


I specifically used the terminology I used because it is the same terminology used by medical professionals that study Olanzapine. It is correct and it is accurate. Example:

Protection from olanzapine-induced metabolic toxicity in mice by acetaminophen and tetrahydroindenoindole.
Shertzer HG, Kendig EL, Nasrallah HA, Johansson E, Genter MB.

Department of Environmental Health and Center for Environmental Genetics, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0056, USA. shertzhg@ucmail.uc.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
In mice and in humans, treatment with the second-generation antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ) produces excessive weight gain, adiposity and secondary metabolic complications, including loss of glucose and insulin homeostasis. In mice consuming a high-fat (HF) diet, a similar phenotype develops, which is inhibited by the analgesic acetaminophen (APAP) and by the antioxidant tetrahydroindenoindole (THII). Therefore, we examined the ability of APAP and THII to prevent metabolic changes in mice receiving OLZ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20065957

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Metabolism and toxin all wrapped in a neat little package. I had previously studied Olanzapine in the past. I forgot most of it but I did remember some of it. I already knew it was a toxin. By the very nature of what it is and does to the body it qualifies as a poison and toxin.

This following is the context and my understanding of the terms I used, and their associations in context to the subject.

"Metabolic disorder" any pathophysiologic dysfunction that results in a loss of metabolic control of homeostasis in the body. It is a term used by researchers of Olanzapine. "Disturbance" qualifies. Disturbance denotes a migration from normal or comfortable order.

Metabolism: the set of chemical reactions that happen in the cells of living organisms to sustain life.

Toxin: A poison formed as a specific secretion product in the metabolism of a vegetable or animal organism, as distinguished from inorganic poisons. Such poisons can also be manufactured by synthetic processes. (wiki)



I don't remember everything I learned about Olanzapine, but other information I remember, and refer back to with a little internet memory refreshment help includes:

creatine kinase: An enzyme present in muscle, brain, and other tissues of vertebrates that catalyzes the reversible conversion of ADP and phosphocreatine into ATP and creatine. Creatine kinase (CK), also known as creatine phosphokinase (CPK) or phospho-creatine kinase

Clinically, creatine kinase is assayed in blood tests as a marker of myocardial infarction (heart attack), rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown), muscular dystrophy, the autoimmune myositides and in acute renal failure.

Elevation of CK is an indication of damage to muscle. It is therefore indicative of injury, rhabdomyolysis, myocardial infarction, myositis and myocarditis. (wiki)

Elevated creatine kinase is often found in patients treated with Olanzapine. All that muscle jerking often associated with this medication doesn't happen for no reason. Something bad is happening. I don't understand the exact mechanism behind it but the above is a clue and takeoff point that could be used to study it further. Elevated creatine kinase is often found in patients treated with Olanzapine and it "might" or "could" be a sign that something is being
destroyed.


I don't expect every patient that takes Olanzapine to suddenly drop dead or be impaired for life. Some may derive benefit from it. But, I like hammer enough that I thought of these things. For his safety I wanted to make sure he was aware.

The Hammer Man has been busy dancing and singing and I wasn't sure if he had taken time out to examine these possibilities. I didn't notice that he had linked to them already.

If this is considered by some as: not sensitive, wrong, seriously dangerous, a product of my own limitations, heedless without excuse, construed as advice, incorrectly defined, nonsense, un-information, bullshit, imposing orthodoxy, and at an expense to health, considering that my terminology was accurate and correct, I will simply have to disagree that it is any of these things. And the next time I see someone getting ready to swallow something toxic, regardless if it be drugs, food, herbs, or gasoline, I will feel compelled to tell them it is poisonous.

Love you Hammer and I would love to watch you dance and sing in your costume complete with wand. I bet its a trip.

[slomo]

Eyeno, my interpretation of C2W's fundamental complaint (and I may very well be wrong in my interpretation) is that it is not always sensitive and compassionate to point out the possible evil consequences of an activity that one is being forced into against ones will, especially when those consequences are not a certainty (but perhaps even if they are) and there may in fact be some physical or at least social benefits.

Yes, your warnings have merit from the standpoint of scientific evidence, and it may very well be that HoL is already aware of much of them. I think (but I could be wrong) that the issue is a subtle one of not reminding a person of a burden they are carrying and may want to forget. Some of us who are quite happy to grapple with uncomfortable truths even if it causes suffering to ourselves sometimes forget that other people don't always want to know the truth, or want to grapple with it at the moment. I'm not sure if Hammer falls into this category of person at this time (and it seems he is quite able to make well-considered decisions about his mental and physical health) but I think that is what C2W is reacting to. Again, I could be wrong.

Unfortunately at my age I am aware of the many compromises and tradeoffs I've had to make in the stark knowledge of how an activity may be damaging my body or (especially) my soul, but nevertheless necessary when the balance of all variables is considered. We are not completely free agents.

[eyeno]

Eyeno, my interpretation of C2W's fundamental complaint (and I may very well be wrong in my interpretation) is that it is not always sensitive and compassionate to point out the possible evil consequences of an activity that one is being forced into against ones will, especially when those consequences are not a certainty (but perhaps even if they are) and there may in fact be some physical or at least social benefits.

Yes, your warnings have merit from the standpoint of scientific evidence, and it may very well be that HoL is already aware of much of them. I think (but I could be wrong) that the issue is a subtle one of not reminding a person of a burden they are carrying and may want to forget. Some of us who are quite happy to grapple with uncomfortable truths even if it causes suffering to ourselves sometimes forget that other people don't always want to know the truth, or want to grapple with it at the moment. I'm not sure if Hammer falls into this category of person at this time (and it seems he is quite able to make well-considered decisions about his mental and physical health) but I think that is what C2W is reacting to. Again, I could be wrong.

Unfortunately at my age I am aware of the many compromises and tradeoffs I've had to make in the stark knowledge of how an activity may be damaging my body or (especially) my soul, but nevertheless necessary when the balance of all variables is considered. We are not completely free agents.

I can accept that and thank you for putting it so kindly.