RX Inserts “Unreadable?”

Prescription drug insert sheets blasted as “unreadable” … they’re intentionally designed to obscure risks and side effects

Image: Prescription drug insert sheets blasted as “unreadable” … they’re intentionally designed to obscure risks and side effects

 

 

 

 

 

(Natural News) If you’ve ever taken a prescription drug, you are probably familiar with those paper inserts that come inside the package – although there’s a good chance you’ve never actually read every word on them. These papers are filled with tiny print outlining the medication’s purpose, dosage, and side effects, but they are so long and technical that few people actually read them from start to finish.

The U.K.’s Academy of Medical Sciences recently slammed the pamphlets in a report, saying that patients find them “unreadable” and “impenetrable” and that they need to be made clearer to increase patient understanding.

The Chair of the report, Professor Sir John Tooke, took pharmaceutical companies to task for the confusing scientific language used in the leaflets. For example, the inserts inside acetaminophen mention the chances of developing pancreatitis and hepatitis but don’t shed light into what those conditions are or just how high the risk is. He says the inserts “aren’t written from a consumer’s perspective.”

Of course, this complex language is really good at accomplishing one thing: making people give up in frustration and ensuring they do not grasp the full extent of the possible side effects that could occur from taking a particular medication. By obscuring the truth about a drug’s side effects and risks, more people will take them and refill their prescription without worrying too much about the repercussions, fattening the wallets of Big Pharma.

By the way, this problem extends to vaccines. In fact, many patients never even read the inserts that come with vaccines because their doctors open up the package and administer it on the spot. If they did read it, they would have known, for example, that the fine print on the package insert of the 2013-2014 flu shot contained mercury, thimerosal and formaldehyde, and that its safety had not been established in pregnant women even though it was administered to them. Even more outrageously, the vaccine comes with just one insert despite being a 10-dose vial intended for 10 different people.

Patients, doctors don’t trust pharmaceutical companies

The Academy of Medical Sciences report also showed that patients trust their friends and family’s opinion more than clinical trial results when it comes to the effectiveness and safety of the drugs they take. After surveying more than 2,000 members of the public and 1,000 doctors, they found that 65 percent of people trust the opinion of their friends and family, while just 37 percent trust medical research evidence.

In addition, they found that 63 percent of the public was skeptical of the claims made by drug trials. Even more concerning was the fact that 82 percent of doctors said they were skeptical of drug trial claims, with the same amount believing that medical research is biased toward making the drugs appear safe and effective. This begs the question of why they continue to prescribe medication if they have such a high degree of mistrust.

The Academy has also proposed a list of questions that patients should ask their doctors when being prescribed medication. It includes questions like how a medication can improve their health and if it can be taken with other medications, but it conveniently omits questions like whether natural or safer alternatives exist.

The FDA reports that medication errors lead to at least one death each day and injure around 1.3 million Americans each year, while the Pharma Death Clock says that nearly 400,000 people have been killed by prescription drugs since 2000. Clear and honest prescription inserts in easy-to-read language and type could go a long way toward helping to prevent many of these unnecessary deaths and injuries.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

BBC.com

TheGuardian.com

FDA.gov

PharmaDeathClock

Advertisements

FYI: “A Pear A Day!”

‘Bye Apple! 5 Reasons Why You Should Eat A Pear Every Day

FOODS_PEARS

December is National Pear Month, the perfect time to celebrate the abundance, variety, and deliciousness of USA Pears. During the holiday season, you can use pears to create festive appetizers and holiday feasts, gifted fresh, preserved as jam or chutney, and as portable, healthy snacks.

More than good taste, this versatile fruit packs a powerful nutrition punch. Pears are an excellent source of fiber and a good source of vitamin C. They are low in calories, sodium-free, fat-free and cholesterol-free. Eating a variety of fruits—including pears–is part of the foundation for a healthy lifestyle.

Here are 5 more reasons why you should eat a pear every day.

1. Weight Management

Studies suggest that adding pears to the diet aids weight loss. In a study women who ate three pears or three apples every day had more weight loss compared to women who ate very little fruit. Likewise, women eating fruit had a greater reduction in calorie intake overall, likely due to greater satisfaction after eating. Eating 3 servings of fruit per day may decrease your overall daily food intake.

Another study showed that eating 3 pears or apples every day satisfies better than eating cookies that have the same amount of calories and fiber. Women added 3 oat cookies, 3 pears, or 3 apples to their daily diets for 10 weeks. The women eating the pears or apples significantly decreased calorie intake and lost more weight than the women eating cookies.

2. Gut Health

A healthy gut is key to a healthy immune and nervous system. Pears contain prebiotic fiber that helps promote intestinal health by providing food for beneficial probiotic bacteria. As fiber travels through the digestive system it acts like a sponge, absorbing water and removing waste and toxins. Pears are one of the leading fruit sources of fiber. One medium-sized pear packs 6 grams of fiber. That’s about 24 percent of the recommended daily intake of fiber. The majority of the fiber in pears is in the skin, so be sure to enjoy the skin!
3. Cancer Prevention

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In a study comparing people diagnosed with colorectal adenoma (growths) to those with no diagnosis, researchers found fruit and vegetables to be somewhat protective, but the strongest protection came from fruit. Those who ate almost 6 servings of fruit daily had 25 percent less risk of colorectal adenoma compared to those who ate just one serving of fruit daily. Researchers believe fiber, as well as other nutrients in fruit, play a protective role against cancer development.

4. Heart Disease

Pears are a heart healthy food. They are a sodium-free, fat-free, and cholesterol-free, a good source of vitamin C and are rich in fiber. Researchers have found that pears and apples are the most protective against heart disease, compared with other common fruits. There are many factors such as diet, activity level, age and genetics that contribute to heart disease. However, according to the American Heart Association, eating more fruits and vegetables may also help fend off a heart attack or stroke.

5. Hypertension

Lifestyle changes such as exercising, eating more fruits and vegetables, decreasing sodium while increasing potassium are helpful when it comes to blood pressure. Also, weight loss—if you are overweight, may reduce blood pressure. Pears are a good source of potassium. Eating foods rich in potassium tend to reduce the bad effects of sodium on blood pressure. And replacing high-sodium, high-calorie foods in your diet with low-calorie, sodium free foods such as pears can help reduce sodium intake even more.

Posted on December 12, 2016   blackdoctor.org/508368/health-benefits-of-pears/

Constance Brown-Riggs, MSEd, RD, CDE,CDN

FoodDay: October 24th

Review examines prevention of unneeded C-sections | National Nursing News

Review examines prevention of unneeded C-sections | National Nursing News.


Review Examines Prevention Of Unneeded C-sections

A meta-analysis by researchers with The Cochrane Library provides insight to the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean sections.

The researchers analyzed various randomized controlled trials and other studies. Their review ended up including 16 studies, in which participants included pregnant women and their families, healthcare providers who work with expectant mothers and community and advocacy groups.

Six studies specifically targeted pregnant women, the researchers wrote. Two randomized controlled trials proved effective in reducing caesarean section rates, including one via a nurse-led relaxation training program for women with a fear or anxiety of childbirth. The researchers noted, however, that both trials were small in size and targeted younger mothers who were pregnant for the first time.

“There is insufficient evidence that prenatal education and support programs, computer patient decision-aids, decision-aid booklets and intensive group therapy are effective,” they wrote.

Another 10 studies targeted health professionals. Three were effective in reducing caesarean section rates, including one involving implementation of guidelines with mandatory second opinion. The researchers did not find sufficient evidence that audit and feedback, training of public health nurses, insurance reform, external peer review and legislative changes are effective in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections.

“Implementation of guidelines with mandatory second opinion can lead to a small reduction in caesarean section rates, predominantly in intrapartum sections,” the researchers concluded. “Peer review, including pre-caesarean consultation, mandatory second opinion and postcaesarean surveillance can lead to a reduction in repeat caesarean rates.

“Guidelines disseminated with endorsement and support from local opinion leaders may increase the proportion of women with previous caesarean sections being offered a trial of labor in certain settings. Nurse-led relaxation classes and birth preparation classes may reduce caesarean section rates in low-risk pregnancies.”

The review appears in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library.

Read it at http://bit.ly/jJE7yd.