this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
49 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

8153 readers
2329 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There should be criminal charges for this, but they never will cuz this was one of those wink-wink deals between government and pharmaceutical industry. I wanna know how and why phenylephrine was ever approved (how did they have the data previously if they are now declaring it ineffective?) Did the data ex post facto "change"? WTF?

[–] Oldmandan 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh... I'd need to look into this specific one more, and it's a bit weirder than 'normal' given this is a drug for a common physiological symptom, but there was a lot of bad medical science done from roughly WWI to the turn of the millennium that nonetheless still underpins some of our commonly available medicines. Clinical psych has it especially bad, but the replication crisis is a problem everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not like phenylephrine. It seems almost entirely a medico-political response to the methamphetamine issue. Which is not a valid justification for bad science and fraud on the part of the government and pharmaceutical industry. And (I mean this as politely as can be) we don't need you to look into it, its a fact and established that this was bullshit. No history necessary, it was bullshit and snake oil and the reason I always asked for the real Sudafed when I had congestion (which is a rather rare issue for me, not sure across the population).

But I also have the better shit as an actual chronic prescription so I can't credibly speak as much to this issue as those who use Suda more often for congestion.

Edit: does Adderall sort of cover the same benefit as pseudoephedrine in terms of congestion relief? I feel like that was one of its original (not sure about official) indications?

[–] Oldmandan 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It feels like every time I go on the internet, I get reminded I need to be very explicit about what I'm saying. (Or develop a thicker skin. :P) Apologies if I sounded dismissive, I was just trying to say that I don't know exactly how it was approved as I haven't done the research to know, but that wasn't surprised it had been, given the overarching issue with medical studies from the last century failing to be replicated. I'm not trying to imply that I'll somehow dig up the absolute truth of the situation that was previously unknown, I just know I'm making a statement with incomplete information.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No worries, dawg :)

You unintentionally sounded like a relative of mine which humorously triggered my mildy-snarky "Well, ACKSHUALLY, no. BRB gotta defer to the FDA's recent findings and publicity regarding phenylephrine".

For context, this person sometimes fancies themself an expert when they don't know anything or enough about a subject but still try to speak authoritatively as if their buy-in is essential to continue or speaking definitively on a given matter πŸ˜‚

You're good, just try not to caveat a strong or even controversial claim someone else makes if you don't know you can dispute it right there like that. Like say that in your head, just don't say the head part out loud cuz someone will rip you a new one if they're grumpy.

But I wanted to be a little sassy and give you some cheek while still caveating that I wanted to be nice about it :)

Peace! I love you guys, no worries!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that it is somewhat effective in nasal sprays, but not in any format that passes through the digestive system. When the US government wanted to tighten controls on pseudoephedrine as part of the War On (Some) Drugs, the pharmaceutical companies needed a substitute to push on the public, so they picked something that worked if you ignored the administration route. And then didn't confine the idiocy to the US.

(Pseudoephedrine is both an effective nasal decongestent and a chemical precursor of home-brewed methamphetamine.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ya, I believe that is what was at issue (nasal spray = good, oral = ineffective. At that

[–] phx 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like it does work, but not really when taken orally.

So perhaps a nasal spray - or even some form of injection- might be effective whereas the pills they were marketing for this purpose were barely effective (due to it not actually reaching the sinuses in any significant amount)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I dont think its honestly an effective enough medication per se let alone when compared against the gold standard (pseudoephedrine) to ever extend my line of inquiry that far.

Why get complicated? Sudafed is easier and orally active so I would always just do that if my Adderall didn't do it already (not 100% on that conjecture)

  • not sure if pseudoephedrine is actually the "gold standard" but if you ask anyone, that's what usually comes to mind
[–] corsicanguppy -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

one of those wink-wink deals between government and pharmaceutical industry

I love these conspiracy claims; it's as if there's a secret meeting and completely hushed agreement held among people who can't even keep a land deal secret or decide that gay people are still people and keep it that way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or like that the government looked the other way like they did with Celebrex and almost like they hav a parallel history of approving bullshit interspersed with the actual good shit

[–] corsicanguppy 1 points 1 year ago

I feel like I need to see some supporting docs on the other end of the scale to balance out all these breathless accusations. It sounds like it's obvious to you, but i may not be able to discern it from the litany of whackadoo prepper conspiracies we've heard for the last few years.

Setting aside snake oil salesmen and conspiracy wonk sources, do you have some actual math on this one?