Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Also while blood thinners would cause increased bleeding they don't always cause excessive bleeding.

Coffee is a stimulant, but I shouldn't suddenly be super charged after a cup.

[Reelya]

There's also a known history stretching back longer than we've been alive of corporations working together to spread misinformation about various cases where members of the public have sued corporations for damages. Basically never assume that the article you're reading about one of these cases is being 100% fair and balanced about the details of the case.

[Descan]

I'd want to see some numbers on just how much the medical industry (Doctors, pharmaceutical industry, etc) has in legal bills. If it's like 90% of their budget on average, then yeah, something's gotta give. If it's more like... 5% or less, then I think someone's drunk the kool-aid a little bit here.

[Neonivek]

I'd want to see some numbers on just how much the medical industry (Doctors, pharmaceutical industry, etc) has in legal bills. If it's like 90% of their budget on average, then yeah, something's gotta give. If it's more like... 5% or less, then I think someone's drunk the kool-aid a little bit here.

Most of the expense in drugs is research and trials... and advertisement.

[wierd]

The problem with some of those blood thinning medications, which includes Warfarin, is that not everyone's renal system eliminates the drug the same way. some clearly it promptly, others do it more slowly.  This means that blood levels of the medicine might be different between patients, while having the same demographics otherwise (age, sex, income level, and dosage). Short of doing blood tests all the damn time and sliding dosages around based on the whims of the patient's renal systems, doctors do the best they can to prescribe a safe, effective dosage.

It is not always appropriate, but that is how statistics works. It is appropriate MOST of the time.

Those class actions suits however, are not for that.  That is now how they present themselves.  They say "Did you use the blood thinning medicines Xarelto or Pradaxa? You could have been exposed to dangerous side effects of these dangerous drugs! Call this toll free hotline to get in contact with an experienced attorney today!"

It not only begs the question that the drugs are dangerous (Fucking water is dangerous. People drown in it all the damn time, and you can actually drink enough of it to poison you.) but enjoins people who were not injured at all by the drugs in question.  Again, because all of those drugs (Pradaxa, Xarelto, and Warfarin) work by preventing blood from clotting. THAT IS HOW THEY TREAT DVT AND STROKE RISK. If your blood does not clot easily, if you get hurt, YOU WILL BLEED, AND IT WONT STOP EASILY.  It's a binary choice.  Stroke and gangrene, or risk of internal bleeding. Pick one. So, if you are being treated for your DVT or high stroke risk by using one of these medications (and these are the bread and butter of treating those conditions) you are eligible to be part of that class action because your risk of serious bleed is greatly increased by those medications, even when they are working for you, and working properly as intended.

When I say we need tort reform, it is for these kinds of abusive lawsuits, that abuse the legal system. That includes the bullshit cases that the big corps are throwing at each other all the damn time, driving up court costs and packing the legal system with red tape hysterics because some enterprising assholes discovered that they can make a business out of suing people. (Patent trolls, et al.)

I do NOT mean (cheesy used car salesman voice) "Here, just sign on this line here (So I can legally bind you to a horrible contract that waives all of your consumer rights and makes you liable for all kinds of horseshit), Yes, good, good."

I don't like being painted with that fucking brush either.

[ChairmanPoo]

This thread is now an anticoagulation thread.

[Strife26]

I'd want to see some numbers on just how much the medical industry (Doctors, pharmaceutical industry, etc) has in legal bills. If it's like 90% of their budget on average, then yeah, something's gotta give. If it's more like... 5% or less, then I think someone's drunk the kool-aid a little bit here.

Most of the expense in drugs is research and trials... and advertisement.

And over-prescription in general. The cost-benefit analysis for medical personnel massively incentivizes giving unneeded treatments, both as CYA and for direct profits (and for the ever-demanding, ever-stupid public's peace of mind).

[Starver]

This thread is now an anticoagulation thread.

It's all those bleeding heart liberals, I tell you!

[Frumple]

Oddly enough, it looks like that trend has a very noticeable age relation. Looks like if the 50+ had stayed roughly static, the total bit would have barely budged since '92. Probably means it's not a self-sustaining trend, though, and possibly not even an actually meaningful one. Sooner or later those older generation trends are going to stabilize one way or another, heh.

In other news, this might interest some of the folks that wanted a clear(er) picture on the whole russia hullabaloo. Apparently someone had taken the time to collate and source as many claims and whatnot as they could. Not actually all that interested in the subject myself (at least until rumblings of defamation suits and perjury trials stop being just rumblings, anyway), so I've only skimmed over about a third or half or so of it and not bothered to poke the given sources basically at all, but it looked like something someone might be interested in seeing, so... there you go. If nothing else it's definitely a hell of a thing from a media coverage/publicly available information standpoint.

[sluissa]

Oddly enough, it looks like that trend has a very noticeable age relation. Looks like if the 50+ had stayed roughly static, the total bit would have barely budged since '92. Probably means it's not a self-sustaining trend, though, and possibly not even an actually meaningful one. Sooner or later those older generation trends are going to stabilize one way or another, heh.

In other news, this might interest some of the folks that wanted a clear(er) picture on the whole russia hullabaloo. Apparently someone had taken the time to collate and source as many claims and whatnot as they could. Not actually all that interested in the subject myself (at least until rumblings of defamation suits and perjury trials stop being just rumblings, anyway), so I've only skimmed over about a third or half or so of it and not bothered to poke the given sources basically at all, but it looked like something someone might be interested in seeing, so... there you go. If nothing else it's definitely a hell of a thing from a media coverage/publicly available information standpoint.

Unless you're inferring something not immediately obvious... there's nothing indicating age on that graph. Those are margins counties are won by.

[Frumple]

... yeah, so it is. No, no implications, just a matter if having just woke up from a nap and my reading comprehension going haywire.

[smjjames]

What's 'Tort Reform?' Can't tell if Reelya was being sarcastic and going off on the lawsuitativeness (I know there's an actual word for it, but can't quite remember it) of some people or is being serious.

[Strife26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

Essentially limiting the ability of civil lawsuits to extract money from people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tort reform is alteration of the standards for launching a civil suit in order to address some infringement of rights. It is highly desired by corporate bodies in order to keep them from being sued by us smallfolk even when they're negligent. The propaganda about the McDonalds coffee burns case shows that clearly enough.

[Neonivek]

I actually can't watch that video. Banned in Canada... typically a false claim.

So why was Hot Coffee legitimate and our view of it was just corporate spin doctoring?