A pill solves all, readers:
"Drugs Offer No Benefit in Curbing Aggression, Study Finds" by BENEDICT CAREY
The drugs most widely used to manage aggressive outbursts in intellectually disabled people are no more effective than placebos for most patients and may be less so, researchers report.
The finding, being published Friday, sharply challenges standard medical practice in mental health clinics and nursing homes in the United States and around the world.
In recent years, many doctors have begun to use the so-called antipsychotic drugs, which were developed to treat schizophrenia, as all-purpose tranquilizers to settle threatening behavior — in children with attention-deficit problems, college students with depression, older people with Alzheimer’s disease and intellectually handicapped people.
Everybody gets pills, huh?
Such drugs account for more than $10 billion in annual sales, and research suggests that at least half of all prescriptions are for unapproved “off label” uses — often to treat aggression or irritation.
Which is why you are irritable in the first place -- you are ON DRUGS!
The authors said the results were quite likely to intensify calls for a government review of British treatment standards for such patients, and perhaps to prompt more careful study of treatment for aggressive behavior in patients with a wide variety of diagnoses.
Other experts said the findings were also almost certain to inflame a continuing debate over the widening use of antipsychotic drugs. Patient advocates and some psychiatrists say the medications are overused.
That's because they want to dope up all free-thinking humans!
The drugs have serious side effects, including rapid weight gain and tremors, and doctors have had little rigorous evidence to guide practice.
Johnny L. Matson, a professor of psychology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, co-author of an editorial with the study in the journal Lancet:
“This is a very significant finding by some very prominent psychiatrists [— one that directly challenges the status quo. While it is unclear how much the study by itself will alter prescribing habits], the message to doctors should be, think twice about prescribing, go with lower doses and monitor side effects very carefully. Or just don’t do it. We know that behavioral treatments can work very well with many patients.”
Other experts disagreed, saying the new study was not in line with previous research or their own experience. Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, said that Risperdal only promotes approved uses, which in this country include the treatment of irritability associated with autism in children.
Yeah, the autism they contracted because of the MERCURY in the VACCINES, assholes!!!!!
So the answer is feed 'em full of more drugs?
In the study, Dr. Peter J. Tyrer, a professor of psychiatry at Imperial College London, led a research team who assigned 86 people from ages 18 to 65 to one of three groups: one that received Risperdal; one that received another antipsychotic, the generic form of Haldol; and one that was given a placebo pill. Caregivers tracked the participants’ behavior. Many people with very low I.Q.’s are quick to anger and lash out at others, bang their heads or fists into the wall in frustration, or singe the air with obscenities when annoyed.
First of all, the obscenity-laced tirades are because of your lying asses, so don't insult me!
Meanwhile, what explains the MASS-MURDERING PRESIDENT who likes to plug frog's asses with firecrackers, 'eh?
After a month, people in all three groups had settled down, losing their temper less often and causing less damage when they did. Yet unexpectedly, those in the placebo group improved the most, significantly more so than those on medication.
So these "drug benefits" are nothing but BULLSHIT, huh?
People doing it to themselves because they got a pill!
In an interview, Dr. Tyrer said there was no reason to believe that any other antipsychotic drug used for aggression, like Zyprexa from Eli Lilly or Seroquel from AstraZeneca, would be more effective. Being in the study, with all the extra attention it brought, was itself what apparently made the difference, he said.
Dr. Tyrer: “These people tend to get so little company normally. They’re neglected, they tend to be pushed into the background, and this extra attention has a much bigger effect on them that it would on a person of more normal intelligence level.”
Yeah, we are all a bunch of attention-craving simps out here!
Does this then explain the MASS-MURDER of nearly 2 million Muslims by the war-criminal-in-chief?
The study authors, who included researchers from the University of Wales and the University of Birmingham in Britain and the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, wrote:
"[Our results] should not be interpreted as an indication that antipsychotic drugs have no place in the treatment of some aspects of behavior disturbance. [But the routine prescription of the drugs for aggression], should no longer be regarded as a satisfactory form of care.”
But keep prescribing the worthless things anyway, 'cause there is $$$$$$ to be made!
Or just stay home and die, kids!
"BU study touts home treatment for pneumonia; Says children in poorer nations would benefit" by John Donnelly, Globe Staff | January 4, 2008
WASHINGTON - In a finding that could save thousands of children's lives every year, a study published today says that children suffering from pneumonia in developing countries could be treated as effectively at home as in hospitals.
Published in The Lancet medical journal, the study led by Boston University School of Public Health researchers found that children diagnosed with severe pneumonia from bacterial causes fared as well with high doses of oral antibiotics taken at home as with injectible medication administered in hospitals.
Pneumonia is the leading killer of children under age 5 around the world, causing the deaths of an estimated 2 million every year - more than die from AIDS, malaria, measles, or diarrhea. While Western countries have been able to effectively treat the vast majority of children with the illness, in which lungs often fill with fluid causing a shortness of breath, many developing countries have done poorly in treating the disease because of inadequate health systems.
Researchers studied 2,037 children under age 5 who were diagnosed with pneumonia in Pakistan. The children were randomly assigned to two groups, with about half sent home with antibiotics and the others hospitalized. By day six of treatment, researchers found that 87 children failed to improve in the hospital, compared with 77 in the home-based group. Overall, five children died, four of them in the hospital and one at home. When it became clear that treatment was failing in these cases, other therapies were tried before the child died.
Unbelievable!
The primitive Pakistanis have it more right than western science and medicine, huh?
Maybe because they LOVE their families?
Donald M. Thea, a BU professor of international health and lead researcher on the project, said yesterday that he hopes the findings will lead the World Health Organization to change its guidelines for handling cases of severe pneumonia in developing countries. Now, the organization recommends hospitalization of all children diagnosed with severe pneumonia.
So they can kill them, it seems, no?
Hell, we fill them full of drugs they don't need!
Those guidelines, though, are problematic on several fronts. Many children never make it to hospitals, or arrive too late, because of great distances to travel, transportation costs, or other impediments. And many poor countries don't have enough health workers; the pneumonia cases further strain children's wards in hospitals.
Dr. Shamim Qazi, medical officer with WHO's Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development and a co-author of the study, said in an interview from Geneva that the organization will convene a group of specalists in the coming months to consider revising its guidelines for treatment of pneumonia.
With a change in WHO guidelines, a health facility could diagnose severe pneumonia and then give parents the oral antibiotics for treatment at home.
Would also leave more health care dollars for PROFIT, wouldn't it?
In the future, pending the results of another study in Pakistan involving community health workers, the WHO also is expected to consider recommending that village health workers diagnose and manage cases of severe pneumonia.
Health ministries around the world closely watch any change in WHO guidelines for treatment of diseases, meaning that a changed treatment recommendation for severe pneumonia would likely be followed widely.
Thea, in an interview: "With cases of severe pneumonia, people have been very reluctant not to recommend hospitalization for kids. But in the back country of Pakistan, or other countries, that is simply not a possibility. But it is OK to give a bottle of amoxicillin, instead of throwing up your hands and doing nothing, which is essentially what is happening now."
The outcome of the WHO's deliberations will not change treatment of pneumonia in the United States or other wealthy countries. The study's findings suggest that pneumonia, like many diseases, can be managed by local health workers in poor settings.
Thea said that will mean starting programs to train health workers and provide better access to life-saving medication:
"There's a recognition that the health systems are going to be inadequate for a long period of time, and so the best way to address these conditions is to bring the diagnosis and management into the community."
Where it should have been all along! Away from the killer U.N.!
But what will it matter in AmeriKA?
You are going to have to keep the kid home, anyway, America.
Hope he/she doesn't croak on you!
"U.S. Curtailing Bids to Expand Medicaid Rolls" by ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is imposing restrictions on the ability of states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, in an effort to prevent them from offering coverage to families of modest incomes who, the administration argues, may have access to private health insurance.
But he wants TRILLIONS for WARS! Well, FUCK HIM!
The restrictions mirror those the administration placed on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in August after states tried to broaden eligibility for it as well. Until now, states had generally been free to set their own Medicaid eligibility criteria.
That's what living in a dictatorship will do.
The federal government has leverage over states, because it pays a large share of the costs for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and states have to comply with federal standards to get federal money.
In the private world you and I live in, that is called EXTORTION!
Just standard practice for a criminal government, though!
On Dec. 20, the Bush administration rejected a proposal by Ohio to expand its Medicaid program to cover 35,000 more children. Ohio now offers Medicaid to children with family incomes up to twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 a year for a family of four.
How can a family of four survive on that?
Tony Fratto, a spokesman for President Bush, defended the administration’s stance.
“We want states to focus on enrolling their neediest population before they consider expanding Medicaid and CHIP to middle-income families. This policy demonstrates the president’s compassion. He wants to direct scarce tax dollars to those with the greatest needs.”
If this is his compassion, may he never show his wrath!
Oh, you mean, like, WAR PROFITEERS, asshole?!
What an EVIL SOUL BUSH IS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Administration officials say government health programs start to “crowd out” private insurance when they cover families with incomes from 250 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level — about $51,600 to $62,000 for a family of four.
Some state officials complained about both the substance of the Medicaid policy and the way it was adopted. The new federal policy reflects a significant shift. In the first four years of the Bush administration, Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, often boasted that he had approved record numbers of waivers, allowing states to decide who got what benefits under Medicaid and the child health program.
Mr. Thompson said in 2001:
“Our goal is to give governors the flexibility they need to expand insurance coverage to more Americans.”
So Bush and his administration lied again, what else is new?
Mr. Bush has been engaged in a yearlong battle with Congress over the child health program. In his budget request last February, Mr. Bush said he wanted to return the program to its “original objective” of covering children with family incomes less than twice the poverty level. He asked Congress to cut payments to states that covered children at higher income levels.
The Democratic-controlled Congress showed no interest in Mr. Bush’s proposal. But the administration has tried to achieve a similar objective unilaterally, with the letter to state health officials.
It's called DICTATORSHIP, dim-witted DemocraPs!!!
Under the new policy, states must meet certain conditions if they want to cover children with family incomes above 250 percent of the poverty level. For example, a child who had private coverage in the past must be uninsured for at least one year before being enrolled in a state child health program.
How about that, huh?
So the kid has to be UNINSURED FOR A YEAR before he can get coverage!!!
Yeah, MR. COMPASSIONATE here!
Good-fucking-Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Federal officials challenged Louisiana to explain why it did not want to enforce the one-year waiting period for children who had lost private health insurance because of a parent’s death or the failure of a business where a parent was employed. In such cases, the state replied, the loss of coverage is involuntary, and the waiting period would “penalize children and families for circumstances beyond their control.”
So what?
That is the BUSH DOCTRINE when it comes to domestic issues:
FUCK the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, FUCK HIM!!!!!!
