Print

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

[G-Flex]

This sounds like really bad news. The fact that multiple people even in this thread have had serious, chronic issues says to me that it simply isn't worth it, and flat-out isn't safe, considering both the incidence and severity of chronic side-effects.

And yes, 10% is very high.

[forsaken1111]

This sounds like really bad news. The fact that multiple people even in this thread have had serious, chronic issues says to me that it simply isn't worth it, and flat-out isn't safe, considering both the incidence and severity of chronic side-effects.

And yes, 10% is very high.

And even more people, myself included, had extremely good results with minimal side-effects.

[G-Flex]

"More people DIDN'T suffer disastrous, permanent side effects than did suffer them" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Again, 10% incidence of stuff like that is very high. And we're not even talking a handful of easily-identified side effects either... apparently they run the gamut from dry eyes to bone growth problems to depression.

[forsaken1111]

"More people DIDN'T suffer disastrous, permanent side effects than did suffer them" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Again, 10% incidence of stuff like that is very high. And we're not even talking a handful of easily-identified side effects either... apparently they run the gamut from dry eyes to bone growth problems to depression.

90% is still pretty good odds, its really up to him to judge if the risk is worth the gain.

[stuntaneous]

not aimed at anyone-  If the worst happens to you, it'll be the biggest regret of your life. Like I said before, when it goes wrong it goes horribly wrong.

Anyway, again.. it's still a choice and the people who come out the other side fine tend to think it was a great one. I just know if I had another chance I wouldn't have given the risks, however small, an opportunity to do my life over as they have. I'd rather be riddled with acne.

[forsaken1111]

Risk is a funny thing, and we don't always look at it objectively. In the US, 1 in 5 people die of heart disease but most of us think nothing of scarfing down a big cheeseburger and a vanilla shake. Accidental injury strikes about 1 in 30 dead, but many people still do things like base jumping and other extreme sports.

Risk, in and of itself, isn't always the deterrent we think it should be.

[ChairmanPoo]

As far as I know: the biggest side-effects of accutane are liver toxicity and alteration of the lipid balance in blood. It  also can cause atrophy of the sebaceous glands in the skin, and in fact, it's anti-acne effect relies on a moderate version of this. So what is normally done is to undergo periodic reviews at the doctor, with a blood analysis after one month to make sure there are not serious toxicity issues. If the analysis come out as normal and the drug is tolerated, the treatment is finished.
So my question is: of that 10%, how many have serious chronic side effects, and how many simply don't tollerate the treatment and quit it without lasting consequences?

[stuntaneous]

@Chairman

I never had any problems with my periodic liver tests    I believe they only check for damage to the actual liver, sparing everything else. They don't shield you from serious, permanent side effects. Furthermore, my bodily response to the treatment was considered normal or within the expected bounds. As far as the doctors were concerned, everything would return to normal within 1-2 months after finishing the course.

It also can cause atrophy of the sebaceous glands in the skin, and in fact, it's anti-acne effect relies on a moderate version of this

trivia- the issue behind my severe dry eye condition is a meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), they're basically a type of sebaceous gland which produces oil for the tear film. Also, I rarely mention it but I have rather dry skin on top of the eye condition. I usually don't say anything about that though because its out-done by the eyes in such a big way.

[G-Flex]

"More people DIDN'T suffer disastrous, permanent side effects than did suffer them" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Again, 10% incidence of stuff like that is very high. And we're not even talking a handful of easily-identified side effects either... apparently they run the gamut from dry eyes to bone growth problems to depression.

90% is still pretty good odds, its really up to him to judge if the risk is worth the gain.

No, it's not. 90% is extremely poor odds when it comes to medicine, at least if we're talking about chronic or severe side effects.

Let me put it this way: If you take bets like that five times, you'll still probably lose on at least one. You can't judge probability in isolation like that.

[forsaken1111]

"More people DIDN'T suffer disastrous, permanent side effects than did suffer them" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Again, 10% incidence of stuff like that is very high. And we're not even talking a handful of easily-identified side effects either... apparently they run the gamut from dry eyes to bone growth problems to depression.

90% is still pretty good odds, its really up to him to judge if the risk is worth the gain.

No, it's not. 90% is extremely poor odds when it comes to medicine, at least if we're talking about chronic or severe side effects.

Let me put it this way: If you take bets like that five times, you'll still probably lose on at least one. You can't judge probability in isolation like that.

As I said, it is up to him to judge whether the risk is worth it, not you. All we can do is give our opinions. I think 90% is acceptable odds, and did when I took the treatment. Why would you worry about 'taking the bet five times'? You're only going to take the treatment once.

[ChairmanPoo]

unless it relapses

[forsaken1111]

unless it relapses

Is that common?

[ChairmanPoo]

not very, but it can happen. Particularily if the adequate dosage is not met.

[G-Flex]

"More people DIDN'T suffer disastrous, permanent side effects than did suffer them" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Again, 10% incidence of stuff like that is very high. And we're not even talking a handful of easily-identified side effects either... apparently they run the gamut from dry eyes to bone growth problems to depression.

90% is still pretty good odds, its really up to him to judge if the risk is worth the gain.

No, it's not. 90% is extremely poor odds when it comes to medicine, at least if we're talking about chronic or severe side effects.

Let me put it this way: If you take bets like that five times, you'll still probably lose on at least one. You can't judge probability in isolation like that.

As I said, it is up to him to judge whether the risk is worth it, not you. All we can do is give our opinions. I think 90% is acceptable odds, and did when I took the treatment. Why would you worry about 'taking the bet five times'? You're only going to take the treatment once.

I wasn't talking about doing the same thing five times. I'm talking about choosing things with such odds in general. No decision exists in isolation. If your general policy is to consider a 10% chance of serious, chronic problems "acceptable risk", then there's a good chance you're going to fuck yourself over.

Also, 90% is a lot less than it sounds like when it comes to things like this.

It's his choice, I know that, which is why neither of us is holding him down and forcing him. However, people have a very poor understanding of probability (and probabilistic decision-making) and what probability of such side effects should even be considered "acceptable" relative to the norm for medication, and it's worth pointing out that the risks involved are very much more than significant.

[forsaken1111]

Nobody was saying that he should make a habit of taking risks like that, nor that he should engage in other risky activity. He asked for advice about a single decision, and possible trends of risky behavior have no impact whatsoever on whether or not he should make this decision.