</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
The chance of contracting tardive dyskinesia (TD) from Zyprexa is very remote. In fact, I am fairly certain that almost all case of TD reported from Zyprexa trials were a result of the Zyprexa unmasking TD that was originally caused by conventional antipsychotic (ie. Mellaril - thioridazine)use prior to the start of the Zyprexa.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I do appreciate your opinion and rationale concerning Zyprexa's risks. I have been aware for some time of the limitations of the drug monographs AND also that the older antipsychotics are well-known to cause tardive dyskinesia as well as other serious problems. So far I have not found good evidence that Zyprexa or any atypical antipsychotic does not pose the same risks. I look forward to seeing any evidence-based studies, of a less flawed nature, that investigate Zyprexa's side-effects.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Medications need to be respected, not feared.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

The very experimental process which gives us medications is based on SKEPTICISM. Beyond that, the safety of the consumer also depends on the integrity of those involved in every part of the drug development, reporting of results, and drug approval system. That integrity is in question.

Your statement implies that one should have FAITH in the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. In actuality drug companies and the FDA are not adequately policed. Drug testing, reporting of results, and granting of drug approval are lax processes. There has been misrepresentation and failure-to-divulge on the part of both organizations, according to the testimony of their own employees. Common sense also tells us that the interests of those organizations often run counter to the interests of the consumer. In my opinion it would be naïve for a consumer to have "faith" in such a flawed process. Buyer beware!

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Any information one gives about a medication must have a factual scientific basis and be as accurate as possible, within the current level of our understanding of pharmacology and physiology.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

To whom are you speaking? That sounds like what one might hear in a pharmacology class. However we are lay persons. Are you suggesting only evidence-based studies are acceptable in the drug forum? Are you suggesting that noone may quote the monographs as if they were respectable information? And what of the considerable anecdotal information posted in this forum? Does it meet your criteria?

I LIKE to quote the monographs. The warnings section has obvious merit. The side-effects section is not alarmist when read properly. I find it useful as high ground from which to watch for emerging symptoms. One can see, by the way in which the subsections are arranged and emphasized, which side-effects are habitual and of genuine concern, as opposed to those which are only listed in a perfunctory manner in the tables. It's not as if I had said the drug monographs are the "last word" in information about medications. They are what they are. If it's de rigueuer in your set to discredit the monographs, is it required that the rest of us in the forum adopt the same mindset? Maybe it's a right-brained thing that I can deal with the Cochrane and the monographs at the same time, as "yes-and" with reservations, rather than "either-or." Anyway, I can hold both positions. Science is always giving us new answers. An "either-or" mind needs to throw something out to find a place for new information. My mind doesn't work like that.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Unless you are able to prove your claims (illegal actions by drug reps; your doctor conducting illegal, unapproved research) you could technically find yourself a defendant in a civil action. Please be careful that what you say is true and not speculation.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

For the record, I have made no such claims, as those versed in the law would realize. I'm sure you mean well. However you are misspeaking and distorting what I say to make it fit an imaginary legal scenario. You are entitled to dislike the opinions I vented about certain nameless medical and pharmacological personnel in the past. However, you are not entitled to your own private set of facts and laws and legal meanings, the authoritative misuse and inappropriate repetition of which only cause embarrassment to all parties concerned.

AFTERWORD: Cam, your help to this forum has been invaluable. I pay attention to everything you say, and I also look beyond, to find the good intentions. What bothers me about the reply you posted is not that you came down so heavily on me for so many reasons. What bothers me is that you seemed to care excessively about protecting the image of medical professionals, deserved or not. Also, you could not spare one word of comfort for me, when I had been treated shabbily by a doctor who did not respect patients' rights.

Adieu