Pulmonary Embolism Support Group
By far the most common form of pulmonary embolism is a thromboembolism, which occurs when a blood clot, generally a venous thrombus, becomes dislodged from its site of formation and embolizes to the arterial blood supply of one of the lungs. Symptoms may include difficulty breathing, pain during breathing, and more rarely circulatory instability and death.
There's been some discussion about the use of fish oil and other supplements (probably aspirin was in the discussions also) for preventing clots as opposed to warfarin.
Without denigrating the use of them or the people who use them I'd like to present the following. I also want to make it clear that no one that I've seen here at DS has tried to 'push' or influence others into trying it; at least as far as I've read.
CAM = Complementary and Alternative Medicine
http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_21_What-s-The-Harm-
Begin excerpt:
What's The Harm?
CAM proponents aggressively market their approaches with the assurance, often absolute and without qualification, that their methods never cause harm. And perhaps the most common response to critiques of CAM from people who consider themselves mildly skeptical of it but who do not have strong opinions about it is "Well, it probably doesn't work, but at least it's harmless." So it appears that the notion CAM is safe, whether effective or not, seems widely established. Unfortunately, it's often not true. Any therapy that has any actual influence on the body's processes will also have the potential for unintended effects, some of which may do harm. And even therapies which have no effect, such as homeopathy, can be indirectly harmful in delaying diagnosis or real treatment.
The following links and articles are resources illustrating some of the harm CAM methods can do, directly and indirectly. It is by no means comprehensive, and it certainly is not a scientific assessment of the risks and benefits of any particular therapy. The purpose is simply to make it clear that it is by no means difficult to find evidence of harm caused by almost any CAM therapy, so when we evaluate these approaches we must balance any possible benefits they have against any possible risks, regardless of the exaggerated claims for safety their proponents often make.
************************
In alignment with the above subject this might be interesting to read:
http://networkedblogs.com/spQaf
"Why Do We Really Need Clinical Trials?"
Without denigrating the use of them or the people who use them I'd like to present the following. I also want to make it clear that no one that I've seen here at DS has tried to 'push' or influence others into trying it; at least as far as I've read.
CAM = Complementary and Alternative Medicine
http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_21_What-s-The-Harm-
Begin excerpt:
What's The Harm?
CAM proponents aggressively market their approaches with the assurance, often absolute and without qualification, that their methods never cause harm. And perhaps the most common response to critiques of CAM from people who consider themselves mildly skeptical of it but who do not have strong opinions about it is "Well, it probably doesn't work, but at least it's harmless." So it appears that the notion CAM is safe, whether effective or not, seems widely established. Unfortunately, it's often not true. Any therapy that has any actual influence on the body's processes will also have the potential for unintended effects, some of which may do harm. And even therapies which have no effect, such as homeopathy, can be indirectly harmful in delaying diagnosis or real treatment.
The following links and articles are resources illustrating some of the harm CAM methods can do, directly and indirectly. It is by no means comprehensive, and it certainly is not a scientific assessment of the risks and benefits of any particular therapy. The purpose is simply to make it clear that it is by no means difficult to find evidence of harm caused by almost any CAM therapy, so when we evaluate these approaches we must balance any possible benefits they have against any possible risks, regardless of the exaggerated claims for safety their proponents often make.
************************
In alignment with the above subject this might be interesting to read:
http://networkedblogs.com/spQaf
"Why Do We Really Need Clinical Trials?"
At least that's what I am gathering from the article/blog.
Maybe I am misunderstanding.
LOL I hadn't thought of it that way---- but clever!
The question of alternative vs EBM is a question that continues to be discussed vigorously and I see no end to it.
Part if it is because there's no money available for funding for alternative 'meds' studies but there's scads of money to be made by simply selling it. And very few sites who sell it bother to tell you all the side effects it might cause, how it interacts with other supps or meds a person is taking and they leave off anything 'nasty' that might occur if a person takes it for too long.
I use some supplements myself but not anything that 'replaces' a medication I need.
Some people stop taking medications for a serious condition in favor of using supplements simply because 'it's natural'. That is certainly their decision and even though I might demur for myself---- that IS their decision.
In some cases people are truly allergic to a drug and have no choice but to try supplements.
In other cases everything has been tried (for years sometimes) and nothing works and they just get worse and worse. Then---- trying a supplement would seem to make sense to them. And I can't condone them, even if I wouldn't try it myself.
And then there are the times when that supplement actually helps the person. No one knows if it's a placebo effect or not. If I knew I'd get cured via a placebo----bring it on!!!! (grin)
The Commission E Monographs.
http://cms.herbalgram.org/commissione/index.html
Quote from site:
Reference Approved by Health Professionals
The entire work has been peer reviewed by experts, including healthcare professionals in allied health fields as well as those selected by the accrediting agencies. For accreditation details, see A Look Inside.
Benefit from Complete Herb Profiles. Each herb profile includes:
a comprehensive fully referenced clinical monograph
a table of clinical studies
a Clinical Overview for quick reference
a Patient Information sheet for duplication
Access Comprehensive Clinical Monographs that Include:
Overviews
Description
Uses
Dosage
Duration of Administration
Chemistry
Pharmacological Actions
Mechanism of Action
Contraindications
Adverse Effects
Drug Interactions
Safety Rating
Regulatory Status
Branded Products
Clinical Review
References
Clinical Studies
Table
Makes one wonder.....
To add a fairly lengthy response to the difference between humans and other mammals------
****[...]an emerging body of evidence indicates that there are fundamental differences in how the process of tumorigenesis occurs in mice and humans. ***
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n12/abs/nrc1235.html
There is discussion in the following journal article about the deficiencies of using the mouse model for studying human diseases.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/166/1/6.full.pdf
***The wishful thinking that mice are a good model of human airway disease is particularly problematic.****
There are many more journal articles in that same vein available on the Internet.
Of course the moral dilemma: Isn't it better to use mice than humans? OF COURSE!
But the limitations have to be recognized.
There are also some trials that use laboratory raisesd beagles that are 'naive' (never used for treatment before). I love dogs and shudder to think of this. I also have had some pet mice and also shudder to think of their lab life!
To digress---- there have been experiments on humans in the past. The Tuskegee syphilis study is the most well known and it was performed here in the U.S.
Then there are the studies, more recent but perhaps under much more surveillence now I hope, where a drug manufacturer treats a third world patient to 'see what happens' under the guise of benevolence.
Back on topic---- I can't come up with a viable alternative from using animal models. Perhaps the future will.
When you read studies having to do with the use of animals, it's good to keep in mind that these studies are often done solely for the purpose of getting FDA approval for certain drugs and the specifics of the studies are really non-conclusive because studies only need to be done for a specified period of time (to obtain licensing and approval) and not for a period of time that would be more appropriate in terms of obtaining specific data that proves the actual effectiveness of the drug in question (including duration of effectiveness). Vaccines are a good example of this.